The global economy is slowing down and the world's major central banks are lowering interest rates (the Federal Reserve holding the federal funds rate at rock bottom) and their respective governments are doing what they can where they can to stimulate demand in a desperate effort to bring it up to speed. This prompts the question: what are they reacting to? Is Marxism in play whereby ever-advancing technology and the global spread of capitalism creates an epidemic of over-production which to less worker participation and less demand? Or is it a reaction to the capitalist view, that in the long term the marketplace automatically self-corrects, no matter what the economic shocks, and brings supply and demand into balance, and thinking as Keynesians do--that in the long term we're all dead--they are just stepping in to bring the global economy up to speed.
Say it's the latter and if the global continues to contract, which it is, there is nothing on the table except another trade deal.
If it's the former history has altered the dynamics that leads to collapse. The Reagan Revolution ushered in an era of neoliberalism that did not lead to the end of history, as a conservative sage posited as the Soviet Union was allowed to collapse, but to the rise of communist China, a global disconnect between demand and supply, unbalancing the global economy that's about to spin out of control.
What they, the central banks, are trying do is rebalance trade; in the short term it is not going happen, and the long term, we're likely to be dead. Houston; we have an ideological problem.
The problem: they are both matter over mind ideologies; they are reflections
based on the workings of the material base: the marketplace. Both have their faith and our fate in the hands of a marketplace god.
This is the political economy that rose out of the industrial revolution: a religious war with their prophets, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. With the rise of the erstwhile Soviet Union and communist China, Marxism has morphed into the rise of military dictatorships, here, the faithful being the Communist Party and the people subject to its rule. With Smith there rose an economic priesthood and a political class dedicated to the marketplace god, to gather their subjects, it wasn't so much by spreading the word, but as Marx says, by spreading a false consciousness: brain washing susceptible workers to support those who do not support them; this is their base. (And you wonder why we have an educational crisis in America.)
Matter over mind ideologies create matter over mind end points. The industrial age was powered by revolutions in the mode of production and means of exchange, and ideologies cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the mode of destruction and means of exchange: ICBM's and nuclear bombs. In the final analysis they have produced, together, a mutually assured destruction: a MAD world with no hope. What we may be witnessing is the end of all history: matter over mind. There is no conscious solution; we are all just bystanders to history, a history written by the marketplace god.
By the end of history I mean that point in time when the industrial revolution has come to logical end brought on by a revolution in thinking: that we are the masters of our fate, that we are the captains our soul.
Part I puts the above theoretical ideologies into perspective. Part II puts forward, in the free marketplace of ideas, the alternative to the theoretical: practical reason.
Part I: The Unbalancing Act
When the communists overthrew the existing order in China they didn't capture much in the way of industrial development which eventually led to a revolutionary shift in ideology: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. While adhering to Marxism it was decided they would take the capitalist road to industrialization. Socialism then is the primary stage where they capture the mode of production, where the dictate is: to each according to his work, that precedes the advanced stage of communism where the dictate becomes from each according to ability to each according to need.
So to get there they simply adopted an open-door policy. Here the chief characteristic is the Art of War; that is: The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. They captured the mode production while
undermining the existing order without firing a shot. It was a great leap based on gospel: they [the capitalist] must nestle everywhere.
However, when the multinationals (the highest stage of capitalism, self-interested stateless entities) , driven not so much for new markets, but by competition in their race to the bottom--in their quest for fewer regulations, lower taxes and cheaper labor--nestled in socialist China, they reached the bottom with a resounding thud that changed everything.
Offshoring manufacturing and assembly to socialist China turned it into the so-called factory to the world while leaving in their wake rising unemployment in their respective countries of origin creating a global disconnect between supply and demand that, so to speak, killed the capitalist marketplace god; left on automatic, it self-destructed. Not only dispelling the myth that free markets self-correct, but also changed the dynamics of Marxism: it is no longer a global epidemic of overproduction, it is centralized production that leads to a critical mass of globally unemployed workers as global demand for Chinese exports falls, which leads to less import demands from China and the global economy begins to slow down on its way to a day of reckoning. But that day has been off by various events that propped up the system.
Looking at the United States, first there is the ever-increasing national debt that propped up the federal government and so propped up a significant part of GNP. Then there are bubbles and bubbles, toils and trouble beginning with
the dot.com boom that created jobs, paper wealth, and lot of capital gains and so a lot of capital gains taxes that led to budget surpluses. Nonetheless Clinton claimed ownership and the myth spread that rationalized Bush's tax cuts and a Republican Congress going on a spending spree. Yet the bubble popped dispelling the myth as the economy fell into a mild recession. Yet the fear was the economy might double-dip into recession: To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
While the Fed initially lowered interest rates, it was Bush (the decider who decided to do nothing) that pushed the
As the bubble inflated prices rose that led to a rash of cash out refinancing that financed purchases that ranged from electronic gadgets, new cars and trucks to home remodeling.
But it was the global housing boom that propped up global demand.
And when the economic bubble popped, the global economy fell into The Great Recession. And we were a step closer to the day of reckoning.
While the Eurozone has its problems and austerity measures have been forced on its weaker members, the United States responded with
Keynesianism; fiscal and monetary stimulus. Obama's Recovery Act and the Fed's pushing interest rates to rock bottom stimulated demand (here and in China) that led to a modest recovery; those too discouraged to look for work (the participation rate) are not counted, giving a positive spin to the unemployment rate. However the economy is nothing to cheer about: most of the new jobs are low-wage or part-time; wages continue to stagnate; too many live from paycheck to paycheck, receive food stamps, and go deeper in debt. Even so, the perception is one of optimism: the Fed, while patient, is thinking about raising interest rates. However, in a global economy you need to think beyond your nose.
So back to China. With the Great Recession their exports plummeted and they responded by accelerating the development of new cities and infrastructure increasing employment domestically and globally (as they demanded more from the world the world demanded more from them) and their exports surged. However, exports peaked and began a bumpy decline with a slight uptick as the U.S. began to recover from the Great Recession.
But why the bumpy decline in exports? The simple answer is oil. China's rise required huge amounts of oil straining global supply pushing up prices.
Yet as prices soared they allowed producers in the U.S. to wring out tight oil from expensive to extract reserves; increasing global supply while giving a significant boost to the U.S. economy. So arguably without those investments in new cities and infrastructure, the global economy could have collapsed. And herein lies the anxiety; it's not only the collapse in oil prices, China is currently demanding less from the global commodity markets, signaling a slowdown in the development of new cities (so-called ghost cities); perceived as the mother of all housing bubbles, and when it pops, 50 million migrant workers lose their jobs as well as those in upstream and downstream industries (such as steel, cement, glass, furniture and appliances) and the service sector. But to be clear, it's not a housing bubble, there is a population restraint on the number of new cites that can be built. It is not a matter of prices or occupancy, it's a matter of limits, and when they reach those limits, China demands less from world, and world demands less from China; and so begins the journey to the tipping point. Are there any more props left? Assuming not, how does/could the global collapse play out?
In socialist China, they turn to communism: from each according to ability, to each according to need. Having captured the mode of production along with the mass production of ghost cites and infrastructure and their colonization in parts of Africa and their waiting base in Angola, they are good to go, albeit not without some trepidation.
How does it play out in the rest of the industrialized world? Looking at the U.S, normally it would be the canaries in the stock market, reading the handwriting on wall, beginning a run on the stock market that leads to panic selling and an unprecedented crash. However:
- If threshold 2 is breached before 1 p.m., the market would close for two hours. If such a decline took place between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m., there would be a one-hour pause. The market would close for the day if stocks sank to that level after 2 p.m.
- In the event where threshold 3 is breached, the market would close for the day, regardless of the time.
There is no revolution; there's just death and chaos. What happens next? It is either martial law or the Federal government taking total control under the provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950. Given the track record of our leaders, the rise of a military dictatorship looks to be inevitable.
A tough time for the nation and even tougher time for President Carter, an oil shock, rising prices, the Fed raising interest rates and so stagflation and an all time high in the misery index, prompted Reagan to ask: are you better off than you were four years ago. So without even thinking, they elected Ronald Reagan in a landside and the Senate went Republican for the first time since 1952.
Reagan, in his augural address made it abundantly clear: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem. It isn't so much that
So it's no surprise their reaction to the unfolding crisis was to become reactionary.
Under Reagan the assault against unions and the Federal government (the quest for lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations) began anew. Never mind that taxes, no matter how they are spend, whatever government takes in, it equally puts out in demand and underwrites those that whine, moan, and complain the most. Nonetheless Reagan set the nation on a path (and a Republican mindset) where an unfettered marketplace would provide the solution.
That led to NAFTA and that great sucking sound. And what hope there was for some practical solution ended with the Clinton Administration.
Obama's embrace of Keynesianism (a semblance of freedom) only intends to get the marketplace humming again: his Recovery Act with its buy American motto. But there is no rebalancing, America still continues to run killer trade deficits. A rise in the minimum wage may make life a better for those recipients, but does nothing to rebalance trade. So (WTF?!), Obama turns to neoliberalism fast tracking another trade agreement (the definition of insanity) putting our faith and fate in the hands of the marketplace god: the nation remains divided, semi-conscious on one hand and comatose on the other. Meanwhile the global economy continues to contract; the curtain is coming down on the prevailing ideologies .
while combating global warming with renewable energy; notably through the subsidizing of algae as a biofuel weaning the nation off of oil, natural gas and coal. The military is your big brother now, you got to love him, he saved your ass. As far as saving democracy... ?
Of course is this is as optimistic scenario. It may be that their primary mission is to maintain the military/industrial complex, those that can't play a supporting role, are superfluous.
The Road To Freedom
What I'm hearing (and others; here, here and here ) is that the self-balancing ideologies, market forces and Keynesianism, have been pretty much kicked to the curb by history.
But if you continue to think in those terms, when you think about it, that means rebalancing manufacturing, reindustrialization in the affected countries, and that leads back to the absurdity of global over-production. So thinking about it means actually thinking about it. And thinking about it means thinking about means shifting from a global economy based on the interdependence of nations to the creation of sustainable self-sufficient nations. the. And that is not going to happen under the current ideological regime; whether it be the invisible hand of the marketplace or the visible hand of governments.
In the realm of reason there is the theoretical; the foregoing Fine in theory, up until that point that history proves them wrong. However, in that realm, the philosophical realm, there is an alternative: practical reason. It is nothing more than doing what is it necessary. What follows is not an absolute prescription, but a thought experiment where the marketplace and government still a play role, here, we are the masters of our fate; we are the captains of our soul: through imagination we, consciously, coherently, and purposely meet the challenges that are the consequence of our being. This is the end game; a shift from the interdependence of nations
First national treasuries are going to have power up their printing presses (no borrowing and no taxes) to subsidize the necessary steps to achieve the end point.
The second step is obvious: replacing oil with renewable resources. The primary focus here will on algae fuel powering our cars, trucks, trains and planes. What follows is a decrease in greenhouse gases, an increase in employment and an increase in global demand for consumer goods. Now comes the agenda for self-sufficiency and sustainability.
As the affected developed nations reindustrialize and push the envelope on automation, on their way to self-sufficiency, along with China, the new markets will be the developing and undeveloped nations. The developing and underdeveloped countries are not only new markets for consumer goods, they are in the market for the mode of production. They export resources and the industrial nations export a fishing pole. This is likely to necessitate the creation of currency zones/fiscal zones/development/zones where applicable.
What about the multinationals and the domestic capitalists who still worship the golden calf? The multinationals that nestled in socialist China, the promised land, having served China's rise, are now being forced out while they a feeling an earnings pinch that is only to become more painful as the global economy continues to contract and dollar strengthens as central banks push for lower interest rates and quantitative easing. What to do with all that money they have stashed; use it or lose it. Maybe instead being the problem they might think about becoming part of solution. That applies to the domestic church as well. If not, where there is a will, there is a way, we'll move on without you.
And as long as nations are relying on their own resources, they can think about the degree that they can subsidize the factors of production. And while you're thinking about that, think about this: California is in the midst of a four year drought and their reservoirs may run dry in a year or so. And California is too big to fail. Whatever needs to done, can only with subsidies.
True, there's no denying there is a perceived problem here: currency markets frown on nations that print money in this manner. Consequently their currencies are devalued and the cost of their imports rise. To the degree they are dependent on global markets, everyone in business has to charge more, feeding a spiral that leads to hyperinflation. However, on other side of that coin, a weak currency makes their exports cheaper, they become more
competitive... if they can survive the inflationary chaos.
But if it is accepted as a common practice that benefits the whole, it is the solution.
When Nixon took the nation off the gold standard the dollar began to weaken, and while a weak dollar would make the nation more competitive, it would also raise the cost of imports; specifically oil. That means inflation, less purchasing power and higher manufacturing costs negating any competitive edge. So Nixon cut a deal with Saudi Arabia: protection and arms in exchange for the Saudis only accepting dollars from all buyers and all oil producers followed suit. Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
The thing is market ideology had entered its terminal phase when Nixon could off us the gold standard. Really, what is gold good for? It just sits there; you can eat it, you cannot convert into energy; in fact, it's an energy sink. What works is the mind; use it or lose it. Internationally, that means a new Bretton Woods that turns to the practical side as well.
About the author:
In and around forty years ago, in my early 30's, I wrote a short essay entitled The Need for Objective Leadership. Mostly it was a rant against the political status quo and unsustainable urban sprawl. Objective leadership would depart from sprawl and plan the development of new cities along sustainable lines. Having said thus, I didn't know what was out there. So I began my search for new cities (back in the day search engines were library card catalogues) and came to find Columbia and the New Cities. Here I found
Ebenezer Howard, the author Garden Cities of Tomorrow. While perceived as the father of urban planning, he is the de facto father of sustainable cities and sustainable development. He founded a new town movement (re: EPCOT) that spread throughout the world Howard was described, by Lewis Mumford, as a practical idealist, and I thought: me too. While perceived as the father of urban planning, in fact he is the father of sustainable cities and sustainable development; I'm just standing on his shoulders. There was a number efforts following that first essay, but it wasn't until housing bubble popped and plunged the global economy into the Great Recession that I hit my stride and in 2008 I responded with this. So here we are in 2015, and as a practical idealist, I have presented by case, made my final argument, and while you deliberate, consider who is on trial and the verdict that follows.