Now out at "Social Science History" at <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/response-to-comments-on-slouching-towards-utopia/78A3CBDDB79075E03CAABD8EFD99CC71>...
I think you achieved your stated goal of writing a grand narrative of the economic history of the "Long 20th Century." The criticisms you cited sound to me like the normal thing we hear from people with their own takes on the subject - "You didn't mention the topic I'm interested in!" Each of those critiques would make a good book, and they should get to work. You're book serves as the framework to which to attach those ideas.
Personally, I would say the triumph of the automobile is a topic that could have used more direct discussion. If one counts automotive infrastructure and the automobile's inherent encouragement of "consumer" overkill (few shared machines, multiplication of wasteful conveniences) along with the fuels, it explains half of our ecological problem. It also speaks to the limits of Hayekian technology formation.
Came close to cancelling my subscription to the FT this morning. Ob n the front page there is an article about how Trump's economic advisors attend that he is just kidding a out his 10% tariff--it's just bargaining ploy. (This would mean that he's been lying to his supporters). Allen Kamp
I don't think that fossil fuel driven global heating is that important as a narrative. Yes, we are ina fix with vested interests effectively blocking teh action we need. But consider whether counterfactuals would change teh narrative. Just suppose we had seriously embraced nuclear power as was hoped in the post WWII era. Global warming would have been far slower and much reduced, yet the same factors preventing wealth and income distribution would have remained. Similarly, if we finally embrace renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel use to a minimum, nothing would change other than teh main players in the economy. There are other environmental issues that loom as large as GW, biodiversity loss, chemical and garbage pollution of the air and water, deforestation, etc, etc. Would mitigating these and reversing the damage change anything? I don't believe so.
For the long term, yes. However, cities layouts cannot be rebuilt. European city centers ahave remained the same layout for centuries. The US housing stock may be replaced in 50 years. So the grid layout of most US cities assumes automobile travel rather than public transport like buses and trams. The time scale is too long to decarbonize by changing travel technology. The best we can hope for is to decarnonize existing vehicles which have a shorter replacement cycle, and increase energy efficiency in homes. Other industries that are major carbon emitters include construction (with concrete) and agriculture. It is all doable, but it needs to be done at a faster rate than currently. I don't see being able to reduce methane consumption as alternatives, e.g. hydrogen, are not really feasible and too costly for the homeowner to replace all gas appliances without massive public funding. All we can do is ensure that all new and rebuilt housing stock is all electric requiring only cooking pots and pans to be replaced. In California, the cost of gas energy is still far cheaper than electric when the energy coversions are made. This implies that converting to electricity from gas is going to add higher running costs to the capital costs. IMO, this will result is pushback against any forced energy conversion.
Agree on the time scale, and would add the hypothesis that it won't happen without a real Green New Deal + WWII-esque effort. It's the biggest of asks, but what happens if it doesn't happen? Big Project Polanyi, for sure.
"We try to figure out how to get the proper benefits of decentralization and incentivization on the one hand, while on the other hand not reducing society to a state where the only rights that are recognized are property rights and thus the only people who have any social power are those who have been lucky or who chose the right parents."
I think this statement would be more true if "We" were replaced with "Enlightened individuals".
Many (most?) humans idea of utopia is NOT a shared prosperity and freedom, but instead the want to be a king or lord or CEO or Elon Musk. Wilhoit's law applies to large swaths of humanity.
One thing I noticed in the book was the thought that Ben Bernanke waited too long to engage monetary tools to aid recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. I remember that at the time, he was imploring Congress to do more fiscal stimulus, which would have been far more effective than any tools he had. I think he was afraid that if he started using monetary tools, Republicans would have an excuse to delay or entirely block spending. In the end, the government did about half of what was needed, and because there weren't many creditworthy borrowers, the Fed's monetary tools were slow to work. They could put money into the banks, but not much was going out. The phrase at the time was "pushing on a rope."
"The Scandinavian countries .... as perhaps the closest human societies managed to get to utopia in the 20th century." But didn't the Scandinavian countries beginning in the 1990s start voting for politicians who favored free markets?" Hasn't Scandinavia seen a regression to the mean in the sense that they now have about the same amount of inequality as other west European countries? Uncontrolled migration probably resulted in increased inequality too. And wasn't Norway's close approach to utopia largely due to North Sea oil wealth? Also note that the Arab guest workers who manned the oil rigs were omitted from Norway's progressive social programs.
As I noted in the first round of comments it isn't really the lack of discussion of the petrochemical industry, but rather that starting right around your 1870 inflection point the exploitation of petroleum dumped hundreds of thousands of quads of energy into the global economy/political economy/society permitting actions, industries, and comforts at large scale which were not possible before that.
And yes, I am aware of the role of coal which was equally significant, but (1) use of coal energy developed over a relatively long period of time compared to the sudden arrival of oil (2) availability of oil-driven machinery, electricity, and finally railroads made the mining and transport of coal far more efficient than coal-making-coal generating a positive synergy of energy availability
If we were to ask for a preview of Brad's take on the Nordic Model, what would such a thing look like? It seems like a massively under-discussed topic.
I must admit to not _yet_ having read the book*, but I don't get the impression that there's a lot of psychological/sociological/ethological discussion in it, so apologies if there is…but I don't think in the discussion of the roots of inequity and of oppression just how satisfying or even fun they are for those in positions to keep them going.
For example, while I at least formally have nothing against consensual B.D./S.M. in private, I hold that its non-consensual sibling perfuses the jobs-system, or at least that's how this particular autist perceives hierarchy save when based exclusively on expertise and continually subject to renegotiation (e.g. in some martial arts, where my junior yesterday may become my senior tomorrow).
See: racism used to divide the working classes, to the immense satisfaction of most of those landing in the 'superior' bin, and so apparently now in a possession of a 'good'—inherent racial superiority, a.k.a. 'the best genes'—from which they can never be alienated wherever the Market may otherwise place them.
*(there! reserved now with my local library network—as Eric Bogosian had a School of the Americas instructor say, and Ken Freedman of WFMU borrowed to cover tech. improvements, 'Weʼre not living in the Middle Ages—we have electricity.')
I think you achieved your stated goal of writing a grand narrative of the economic history of the "Long 20th Century." The criticisms you cited sound to me like the normal thing we hear from people with their own takes on the subject - "You didn't mention the topic I'm interested in!" Each of those critiques would make a good book, and they should get to work. You're book serves as the framework to which to attach those ideas.
Personally, I would say the triumph of the automobile is a topic that could have used more direct discussion. If one counts automotive infrastructure and the automobile's inherent encouragement of "consumer" overkill (few shared machines, multiplication of wasteful conveniences) along with the fuels, it explains half of our ecological problem. It also speaks to the limits of Hayekian technology formation.
If anybody's interested in more along these lines: https://markettotalitarianism.substack.com/p/a-grouchy-note-on-car-culture
This comment is not about Slouching.
Came close to cancelling my subscription to the FT this morning. Ob n the front page there is an article about how Trump's economic advisors attend that he is just kidding a out his 10% tariff--it's just bargaining ploy. (This would mean that he's been lying to his supporters). Allen Kamp
Why is that the FT's fault? (And it _is_ hugely implausible that those tariffs are anything but fantasy, isn't it? MAGA < RP inside Congress.)
It is part of the media's sanewashing of Trump.Yes, it's a fantasy, but his followers take it seriously. Allen Kamp
I don't think that fossil fuel driven global heating is that important as a narrative. Yes, we are ina fix with vested interests effectively blocking teh action we need. But consider whether counterfactuals would change teh narrative. Just suppose we had seriously embraced nuclear power as was hoped in the post WWII era. Global warming would have been far slower and much reduced, yet the same factors preventing wealth and income distribution would have remained. Similarly, if we finally embrace renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel use to a minimum, nothing would change other than teh main players in the economy. There are other environmental issues that loom as large as GW, biodiversity loss, chemical and garbage pollution of the air and water, deforestation, etc, etc. Would mitigating these and reversing the damage change anything? I don't believe so.
The main tech we need is major urbanization/de-automobilization. That's no side topic.
For the long term, yes. However, cities layouts cannot be rebuilt. European city centers ahave remained the same layout for centuries. The US housing stock may be replaced in 50 years. So the grid layout of most US cities assumes automobile travel rather than public transport like buses and trams. The time scale is too long to decarbonize by changing travel technology. The best we can hope for is to decarnonize existing vehicles which have a shorter replacement cycle, and increase energy efficiency in homes. Other industries that are major carbon emitters include construction (with concrete) and agriculture. It is all doable, but it needs to be done at a faster rate than currently. I don't see being able to reduce methane consumption as alternatives, e.g. hydrogen, are not really feasible and too costly for the homeowner to replace all gas appliances without massive public funding. All we can do is ensure that all new and rebuilt housing stock is all electric requiring only cooking pots and pans to be replaced. In California, the cost of gas energy is still far cheaper than electric when the energy coversions are made. This implies that converting to electricity from gas is going to add higher running costs to the capital costs. IMO, this will result is pushback against any forced energy conversion.
Agree on the time scale, and would add the hypothesis that it won't happen without a real Green New Deal + WWII-esque effort. It's the biggest of asks, but what happens if it doesn't happen? Big Project Polanyi, for sure.
"We try to figure out how to get the proper benefits of decentralization and incentivization on the one hand, while on the other hand not reducing society to a state where the only rights that are recognized are property rights and thus the only people who have any social power are those who have been lucky or who chose the right parents."
I think this statement would be more true if "We" were replaced with "Enlightened individuals".
Many (most?) humans idea of utopia is NOT a shared prosperity and freedom, but instead the want to be a king or lord or CEO or Elon Musk. Wilhoit's law applies to large swaths of humanity.
One thing I noticed in the book was the thought that Ben Bernanke waited too long to engage monetary tools to aid recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. I remember that at the time, he was imploring Congress to do more fiscal stimulus, which would have been far more effective than any tools he had. I think he was afraid that if he started using monetary tools, Republicans would have an excuse to delay or entirely block spending. In the end, the government did about half of what was needed, and because there weren't many creditworthy borrowers, the Fed's monetary tools were slow to work. They could put money into the banks, but not much was going out. The phrase at the time was "pushing on a rope."
"The Scandinavian countries .... as perhaps the closest human societies managed to get to utopia in the 20th century." But didn't the Scandinavian countries beginning in the 1990s start voting for politicians who favored free markets?" Hasn't Scandinavia seen a regression to the mean in the sense that they now have about the same amount of inequality as other west European countries? Uncontrolled migration probably resulted in increased inequality too. And wasn't Norway's close approach to utopia largely due to North Sea oil wealth? Also note that the Arab guest workers who manned the oil rigs were omitted from Norway's progressive social programs.
Finland has no oil. Neither does Sweden.
As I noted in the first round of comments it isn't really the lack of discussion of the petrochemical industry, but rather that starting right around your 1870 inflection point the exploitation of petroleum dumped hundreds of thousands of quads of energy into the global economy/political economy/society permitting actions, industries, and comforts at large scale which were not possible before that.
And yes, I am aware of the role of coal which was equally significant, but (1) use of coal energy developed over a relatively long period of time compared to the sudden arrival of oil (2) availability of oil-driven machinery, electricity, and finally railroads made the mining and transport of coal far more efficient than coal-making-coal generating a positive synergy of energy availability
How about slouching toward Eutopia? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
If we were to ask for a preview of Brad's take on the Nordic Model, what would such a thing look like? It seems like a massively under-discussed topic.
Flagbuzz essentially beat me to this, but:
I must admit to not _yet_ having read the book*, but I don't get the impression that there's a lot of psychological/sociological/ethological discussion in it, so apologies if there is…but I don't think in the discussion of the roots of inequity and of oppression just how satisfying or even fun they are for those in positions to keep them going.
For example, while I at least formally have nothing against consensual B.D./S.M. in private, I hold that its non-consensual sibling perfuses the jobs-system, or at least that's how this particular autist perceives hierarchy save when based exclusively on expertise and continually subject to renegotiation (e.g. in some martial arts, where my junior yesterday may become my senior tomorrow).
See: racism used to divide the working classes, to the immense satisfaction of most of those landing in the 'superior' bin, and so apparently now in a possession of a 'good'—inherent racial superiority, a.k.a. 'the best genes'—from which they can never be alienated wherever the Market may otherwise place them.
*(there! reserved now with my local library network—as Eric Bogosian had a School of the Americas instructor say, and Ken Freedman of WFMU borrowed to cover tech. improvements, 'Weʼre not living in the Middle Ages—we have electricity.')
Damn!!!
Your wrote a book not an encyclopedia of economic history. Reads like guarding the borders comments.