The Thom Hartmann Radio Program
Live Chat Room -- Topic-by-topic audio archives -- Audio Archives -- Web Pages -- Articles on Democracy
New Since your Last Visit
 
We The People
Activism Alerts
Articles by Thom
Audio Archives
Bibliography
Biography
Book Reviews
Books by Thom
Bumper Music
Candidates
Chat Emoticons
Chat Room - main
Clips
Cracking the Code
Events
Frames
Interviews
Law
Movies
National show
News
Newsletters
NLP classes
Photos
Stack
Tag, you're it!
Thom's .com site
Transcripts
White Rose
More!
  Links
  Mercury Retrograde

Subscribe to
Thom Hartmann's Free Newsletter on Politics & the Environment
(we respect your privacy and do not sell or share our list)
Email 
First 
Name 
My email program supports HTML 
    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Economics    Unnatural growth

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Find
Notify
Tools
  Login/Join 
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted
One of Thom's rants from the Wednesday 08 August '07 National show:

quote:
I think it's really critical that we note that the economic system that we call unregulated capitalism, raw capitalism, naked capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism, in an unregulated state is like cellular division inside the body in an unregulated state. Normally cells operate in a regulated state, in what's called homeostasis; biological homeostasis. They're limited by the amount of food available to them. They're limited by their own internal control mechanisms. They're limited in the speed and size of their growth; they do grow and reproduce but within certain boundaries and limits. And they behave co-operatively with all the other cells in the body. Your kidneys don't try to take over your liver. Your liver doesn't try and take over your eyes. Your eyes don't try and take over your feet; you know, on it goes, right?

And when individual components of a finite system rise up and start eating out the core of that system, that is referred to as cancer, and we have a finite system that is known as the biosphere, the world we live in; it is absolutely a finite system. It is not infinite, and yet everybody's talking about infinite growth. "Oh, we've got to grow the economy". "I've got a better way to grow the economy." "I've got 16 plans to grow the economy". "I'm going to grow the economy." "Chinese are growing the economy". "In India, the economy is growing". Everybody thinks that's good news.

And we're up to the point where we're consuming about half of the total photosynthetic productive capacity of the planet; about half of all products of photosynthesis now. We have taken more than 90% of the large fish species out of the ocean. We've got 50,000 species a year going extinct. extinctions: 99.999% of all animals, all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. I mean, extinction are a normal thing. Are we next? And I think that this movie, Leonardo DiCaprio's movie "The 11th Hour" just did a brilliant job of raising these issues and framing these issues and what we can do about them and pointing that out, that it is a finite system.

And also pointing out the fact that in nature, and this is, you know, again, the smartest things that we can do, the smartest thing that we can do as a smart species is to imitate nature. You know, you think steel is really strong stuff. Just spider web's silk is 5 times stronger than steel, ounce for ounce. Five times stronger than steel. And it's made at room temperature, and steel requires, you know, incredible heat. It's made with water. I mean, just basic reactions. Spiders eat bugs, they produce something stronger that steel.

So let's looks at nature. And what nature does, is everything that is excreted is absorbed by something else. We exhale carbon dioxide, trees inhale carbon dioxide. They convert it into biomass, and in the process they exhale a waste product -- for trees -- called oxygen, which we inhale. Plants and animals have this perfect dance: every animal or plant's waste in some way; salmon and bears, for example.

You find that for about a hundred, hundred and fifty miles stretch around rivers in the Pacific North West, the vast, over 70% as I recall, Stuart Pimm told us this at a meeting we had down in San Francisco about 6 months ago; over 70% of the nitrogen in the soil comes from bears eating salmon in the rivers, and other large fish, and then walking round in the woods and pooping. And that's what feeds the trees, and that's why there are forests there; at least the type, the mixture of types of trees and the types of habitats that there are. And without those bears or without those salmon, it would be a completely different type of biological system. Why don't we look at nature? Why don't we figure out how to recycle our waste?


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Spider Silk has high tensile strength but lacks a rigidity for most purposes and lacks a cost effective method for production.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
True, but nature provides many different substances for different purposes, which they suit admirably, in ways that are cost effective for the plant or animal, and which are fully recyclable. Why can't we?

The spider weaves its silk into webs. Birds (e.g. long-tailed tits) weave cobwebs and spider coccoons into their nests, incorporating many other materials. We weave single threads of a variety of materials into braids and ropes.

Our current methods of production use a great deal more energy and produce a great deal more waste than nature does, and are only possible because of our use of ancient sunlight - we are spending our capital (energy, soil, etc.) at a stupendous rate that can't last.

If we want to be considered equal to the rest of nature, we need to learn how to be as efficient and cost effective as nature.


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
quote:
... lacks a cost effective method for production


The fact that WE can't produce it cost effectively is one of the main points.


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
The fact that WE can't produce it cost effectively is one of the main points.

Actually if it not cost effective then by definition it wastes resources.

Much of our recycling today falls under that return on investments.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
A lot of corporations avail themselves of govermment subsidies, and a lot of them waste resources. They should read "Natural Capitalism".


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
quote:
The fact that WE can't produce it cost effectively is one of the main points.

Actually if it not cost effective then by definition it wastes resources.

Much of our recycling today falls under that return on investments.


Take into consideration the costs of repairing environmental damage...and what is seen as "cost effective" could be just the reverse.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"
 
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sue N:
A lot of corporations avail themselves of government subsidies, and a lot of them waste resources. They should read "Natural Capitalism".
I have to be honest that at first I thought this would be another shallow site that did not reveal much of what their theories were. Just some drab concepts of a Marxist Utopian world view. But let me address some interesting points in the PDF I found on the site at: A Road Map


In all the models that I have studied in economics it was assumed that for the individual firm that there was no confining limit on the any of the inputs but the price of each additional unit tended to increase in price. And the ones that did have a limiting factor it was not labor but raw resources. So for this I questioned the organization, but I did read through the PDF and found some quotes I will get to later...
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
I wonder how many people running businesses run them according to economic theory, and how many just play it by ear according to their circumstances.


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sue N:
I wonder how many people running businesses run them according to economic theory, and how many just play it by ear according to their circumstances.
In our age of information you would think people have to keep up on their field of study. But I recently heard that "new" medical procedures take 15 years before they become widespread. So as I am sure I will point out later lack of information can be a market failure.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Picture of Slabmaster
Posted Hide Post
I hope this isn't a tangent, but I had a recycling experience today.

I was cleaning out my gun room where I reload and decided that 300 lbs of additional brass shell casings was insane to keep storing. This hoarding disease comes from always picking up empties at the range to reload. My father was worse.
I called a metal recycler and was told that brass is paying $1.10/lb.
I was going to leave it at the local range for some other hoarder to take home!
Haaaa!

My capitalist juices were flowing and now I have more money to put towards high end Autrian optics.

I'm now on a jihad to find all reyclable metals to cash in on. It's a mission from God. I heard a voice....it said "find brass and copper and sell it for easy money so you can buy cool stuff".

And the naysayers whine about no opportunities. My goal is $25K by Christmas.

and I always exceed my goals.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1913

 
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006Report This Post
Picture of PeeWee Returns
Posted Hide Post
Sue said:
quote:
I wonder how many people running businesses run them according to economic theory, and how many just play it by ear according to their circumstances.


My life and my business are intertwined. I think that's how it is for most people.

I'm not sure what "economic theory" is. But I do know a hybrid car costs lots more than a plain old petro car.

Hybrids don't save enough fuel to pay for the premium start up costs.

Square this with "economic theory" for me; whatever that is.
 
Posts: 1807 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: 23 June 2005Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
I wonder how many people running businesses run them according to economic theory, and how many just play it by ear according to their circumstances.


Micro and macro economics won't get you as far as good accounting.


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
 
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Well maybe I can answer this question PeeWee. But ultimately you will have to decide what you want to spend your money on.
quote:
My life and my business are intertwined. I think that's how it is for most people.
I'm not sure what "economic theory" is. But I do know a hybrid car costs lots more than a plain old petro car.
PeeWee there are a lot of "economic theories" and you may even be familiar with "Supply and Demand".
quote:
Hybrids don't save enough fuel to pay for the premium start up costs.
Square this with "economic theory" for me; whatever that is.
I will go with second question since it seems easiest. Economic theory is that consumers will purchase things as long as the marginal utility derived from the purchase of that product is higher than any other competing product (including savings). Since each consumer has different marginal utility curves then we all have differences in our basket of stuff we purchase. And it is just a matter of trade-off.

OK, then why would someone pay for a hybrid when Consumer Reports shows that it is more expensive over a 5 year ownership. First there is risk premium on the price of gas. The results of the cost structure change quite drastically if gas prices are $4 to $5 per gallon. California blend is already more expensive than most states. But some people do not understand this risk. Every time gas prices rise up CNN always has some person on there complaining that there commute is too expensive now when they live 50 miles from work in a gas guzzling vehicle. You have to wonder if they ever thought about their decisions.

Secondly, I don't believe the reports count the up to $3,000 credit on Federal Taxes from purchasing a Hybrid.

Also in California some have access to HOV (carpool) lanes. And Smog inspections are required unless your vehicle is: * Hybrid. That is one less hassle per year as well as minor costs.

As far as me, that is another story about maximizing my utility...

Slab, not at all. Excellent! pot
Is that the symbol for star???
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
OK some notes from the A Road Map.
quote:
Reducing the wasteful and destructive flow of resources represents a major business opportunity.
Of course, so this article seems nothing more than repackaging best business practices under a different frame. But not to say that the points are not important.
quote:
The central principle of closed-loop manufacturing is "waste equals food". Every output of manufacturing should be either be composted into natural nutrients and returned to the ecosystem or be remanufactured into new products.
That is the ideal standard (six sigma) but any system will have some "leakage". If nothing else heat loss.
quote:
Many executives think they already "did" efficiency in the 1970s, but with today's far better technologies, it's profitable to start over again.
Yes the bean counters are not keeping up with the changing input costs of business. One powerful economic theory is that of marginal productivity of one input should be equal to the marginal productivity of any other input.
quote:
In nearly every country on the planet, tax laws penalize jobs and income while subsidizing resource depletion and pollution.
Yes sir. Governments tend to be the biggest distorters of the market.

When they talked about having bigger pipes or wires and thus reduced the amount of energy needed they forget that many times the original decisions were made under different cost structures or even limiting factors. Copper as I have talked about is a limited resource that at times has increased significantly in price.

I want to close with a little story from Santa Barbara. There was a local manufacturing plant that had a waste pond to dispose of their waste chemicals. Well the local environmentalists went ape shit on them. Harassing and spying on them, testing the water all around and no sign of contamination. One day they did sneak in and get samples and this of course resulted in lawyers and court papers back and forth.

Well when all was said and done, they discovered that the chemical they were dumping was actually a lot more valuable than they originally thought it was. Thus they worked together to change some manufacturing processes and proceeded to start recycling the waste piles. What is the moral of the story?
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Economics    Unnatural growth

Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.