The Service Economy Myth

2008-07-18T06:33:10-07:00

Ever wonder why the dollar is in a steady decline? Ever wonder why so many foreign corporations and companies own so much American property?

It's really quite simply because we have ceased to be a producing nation. Not that we are not very productive, very busy, very hard working. It's just that we no longer produce very much physical material for all of our hard labors. This is not to say that our exhaustive intellectual property or managerial and IT service isn't worth anything, it has value, in it's own way.

But here is the problem: all this intellectual property, managerial whatnot and IT services, you can't eat them, you can't wear them, they will not quench your thirst, they will not power your machines. They are luxuries.

Can you build a country's economy solely on luxuries?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

The service sector should be just that, a sector, it shouldn't even be a majority sector if we want a strong and fruitful economy. If we want an economy that concentrates wealth into our country and it's citizens, it has to produce real main stream products, not luxuries. As we saw in the 70's and 80's the manufacturing sector of our economy could not compete very well against foreign manufacturers. This is the normal give and take in the system, but in the US there is a problem with the corporation system and the government. Nothing serious was done to keep the manufacturing sector afloat. We did not raise tremendous tariffs on imported manufactured goods and direct that money into manufacturing R&D. Nope, we just started importing more manufactured goods, first from Japan and then China as they became more industrialized. And of course how did we paid for all these imported goods? Well let's just say it wasn't a fair trade, we definitely did not exchange our manufactured goods for theirs. We paid for it with the accumulated wealth of a nation that was once the undisputed industrial world leader. We paid for it in dollars, which now that it's not based on any metal reserve system is more like stock in the American government than any sort of real currency.

It's not that we couldn't make major changes to the corporate system that rewards the quick buck over the long term investment. It's not that the government couldn't use tariff money to run large and risky research programs that would make our manufacturing sector competitive again.

It was just easier to outsource our manufacturing economy. Kind of like how it's easier to import oil than develop alternative fuel sources...

So all that news that we've been hearing over the years about how “our economy is becoming a sort of service economy” has been a lie, what they we're really saying is “our economy is failing, so we're going to tell you it's becoming something better so you don't panic!”

But,

in truth,

without an economy based in manufacturing,

or an economy based in exportable energy commodities,

or an economy based on any sort of basic human need instead of luxuries,

our economy is a lie.

Just like the cake...

Using biofuels is starving little children!!!

2008-05-02T12:35:59-07:00

So, at least that is what I read so often, as one of the many excuses to do nothing about future energy concerns. And to some degree it is a true statement that, "using corn for ethanol will raise the cost of food for the poor." Yep, that's right, corn is a horrible biofuel base crop. Besides the fact that it's efficieny is pathetic, less than a 50% net return on energy invested and it raises the competition for a human food source. Only the corn lobby in the states is trying to promote the use of corn as a biofuel base, no other industry is saying that it's the perfect crop. But is that a reason to turn away from biofuels?

No!

wait that wasn't loud enough...

NO!!!

So if we look at the situation a little more closely, and see where people get the idea that using corn for ethanol is reason enough not to try to use biofuels, we'll see that there is some confusion over market boundaries. You see it is a common mistake to think that the human food market and the human energy markets are two unrelated categories. You think, "Okay, here is corn, it sure is tasty. I like popcorn!" , and then you think, "Gasoline smells funny, is poisonous, but my car needs it." So the perception of corn as a human only energy source is kind of reinforced by the fact that when we think about it we think about tastes, smells and the feeling of fullness that comes from eating. Corn is inherently anthropomorphic, we can related very closely with it. Gasoline on the other hand, the decayed bodies of marine life from eons past, has no human-like associations, so it is hard to see them as the same thing, but they are.

Corn and gasoline are exactly the same thing in the way that matters most, they are both portable energy sources. And all portable energy sources are beginning to feel the pinch of an overpopulated planet. The rising cost of corn is based on the more general rising demand for portable energy. And since some of these forms of portable energy are things we use for food, the reality of a market where, the increase in demand exceeds in the increase in supply, causes things like our mistaken perception of different market boundaries to begin to crumble.

But seeing as how we are humans, our human nature is quick to blame and slow to understand. So instead of seeing the failure of our market paradigm, we blame the latest fad that's been in the headlines lately. But if the increasing use of corn based ethanol is responsible for increasing corn prices, then other grain stocks should be unaffected correct? Well, apparently that is not the case. People are beginning to starve on a large scale because their is increasing demand for portable energy. That SUV you probably drive is as big a reason for that increased demand as is that 4,000 calorie dine out restaurant meal or that 44"/500watt plasma TV or that emaculate suburban lawn.

I am not blaming everyone but myself, I too was hooked on consumerist culture for a long time, I too realize that I am 'personally' at fault for increasing the demand for portable energy sources. We here in the United States are especially at fault for wasteful use of our resources. Each and every one of us is at fault, personally.

But, we can change. We can retake the moral high ground. It all begins with admitting that there are problems with the way we do things, that what we do here can effect people on the other side of the globe. And then we start to learn, whatever we can learn about the problem. And then we begin to change, as we can, and as we will.

The easy way is to do nothing, to find excuses not to try. To pretend like the very bad consequences of our choices are always just beyond what we will ever have to deal with. But sometimes we have to deal with the future, a future that always seems to approach too fast when there is something bad in it, and never fast enough when we wait for something good in it. But we must go on, and we must continually look for ways to overcome the bad things, and take maximum advantage of the good things. Looking ahead we need to be get used to some of these things, these inevitable things:

Moving to alternative fuels as an industrial basis is a good solution to an impending resource crunch.
Not doing anything about our industrial energy basis will lead to much worse starvations and other effects that result from an increasing competitive portable energy market.
The world has too many people in it and not enough feasible resources, starvations will happen as a result of competition for resources, it cannot be avoided entirely.
We need to explore as many solutions to these problems as possible with as much effort as we can muster to minimize the negative effects of the drawn out end of the era of fossil fuels.
Negativity without constructive replacement is childish and has no place in working toward the future of civilization as a whole.

Propaganda

The Service Economy Myth

Using biofuels is starving little children!!!