Green Think Tanks and Ideology

     The book dealt with rivalries in partisan ideologies, yet it never really delved into the other types of think tanks. Any since there are well over a thousand in this country alone, I decided to look into any that are of interest for their mission and possible future influence. While I am sure there are similar think tanks, I looked into a think tank called the "Tellus Institute".

http://www.tellus.org/index.php


     What piqued my interest is that the tone was remarkably different than the ideological think tanks with their banners of "go elephant" or "go donkey". While clearly a caricature, I no less mean that these constant struggles can be boring at times. Tellus is one that I believe can be influential in the future as there is some basis of their "paradigm shift". For instance, they are supporters of the so-called "Great Transition Initiative":

     "Critical to this transition is growing public awareness of the dangers ahead and the need to revise our ways of living – and living together – on this planet. In this, our time of choice, we need a vast movement of global citizens to carry forward a Great Transition."

http://gtinitiative.org/perspectives/values.html

     Their values for this outlook parallel those of many green and New Age movements. That is, the desire that humanity has sought since the Industrial Revolution must come to a close. That, instead of profit, the focus will inevitable shift to a global view while respecting Mother Earth. Some might dare say they sound like a bunch of hippies, and that...may be true. All humoring aside, this represents another by-product of the Global Warming and clean technology movement.

     In a more technical manner, the Tellus Institute publications is detailed on the site as follows:

      "About 300 selected publications are available here on scenarios, energy, water, solid waste, corporate responsibility, and sustainable development."

      So overall, their research is geared toward what one would expect of green think tanks. However, the dynamic that I find rather interesting is how they embed that worldview described earlier heavily. It goes as far to say that a removal of standard policy making must be made for their transition initiative to occur. Their mission statement creates interesting reflections on their research. Consider this flow chart:


     What's striking about this is that a think tank is going against the natural grain to be involved in the policy process, but they instead want a shift away entirely from that to their "eco-communalism" and "new paradigm". It also present a very black and white argument. Instead of creating a gray area between these paths, Tellus essentially believes that society will ultimate go to "business as usual", fear and chaos, or some Zen garden of sorts. Thus, Tellus is a rare long-term focused think thank that purports societal change in identity.

     This picture, while clearly being simplified, I believe should be more of a chain than having so many ends. First, they seem to think that the world whole has to be singing Kumbaya or something when most likely the world will become very interwoven with fragments not participating. There will most likely always be a North Korea in the world, and some countries will breakdown due to internal conflict at some points. Nonetheless, there can still be a solid chance that the world will become more eco-friendly and environmentally conscious. Tellus' aim is possible, but it will involve policy reform and some tears along the way. A shift in culture is painful since most prefer the status quo, and there will be setbacks even in a "New Age". Thus, I say it will be a chain more so than 3-6 distinctive endings.

     This link is really interesting. It shows their view on what happens in each scenario in different regions around the world:

 http://www.tellus.org/results/results_Indicators_NA.html

     Emphasis was placed on harmony with nature in a way reminiscent of the Native Americans. To me, people are too embedded in this electronic infrastructure. Millions of years we were woven with nature, yet now we cannot get off our computer (I know I can't until I get this blog done!). Some might argue its evolution, and I embrace it, but the idea that technology solves all is wrong for the foreseeable future. America as a whole has this innate appreciation for self-sufficiency, yet I doubt many could function without electricity. This kind of dependence is risky as now the light switch dictates collective sanity. I'm not saying do everything by the old-fashioned way but do appreciate that this planet is all we have. No magic worm holes have been found, and we can never get to another planet to survive as of now.

Nanotech Flattener

     The word flattener has been used abundantly in the past few weeks. We talked about how access to the Internet can educate those in poverty-stricken regions with a connection. The shift of labor and uptick in the frequency of international corporate moves have created markets and jobs for those who were akin to indentured servants or peasants. The issue itself is in-depth as we have found out with ramifications for the U.S., manufacturing economy to service economy,  as well as cultures embracing or resisting the global flux. But, we all know that the accelerating technology expansion has created a world that shifts form, constantly with a new face. Undoubtedly, this leads to new flatteners, and my inquiry of this post is what might be the prime candidate might be for this.

     Nanotechnology:

     To me, I believe that nanotechnology will drive the future to limits that have not been foreseen. Now, I don't necessarily propose the so-called Singularity theory where technological advancement will be accelerated that our basis human nature will be changed (although that is possible down the road as collective attitudes and customs change). However, nanotechnology will be the primary technology of this century like the steam engine was in the 1800s and computers in the last one. With molecular manufacturing, nano factories will be produced that can create life-size objects with precision on an atomic scale. The improvements to efficiency will realize massive energy savings and create nano machines that can absorb carbon, deliver drugs, or desalinate the water. And, according to Ralph Merkle in the video above, there will be cost savings in nano manufacturing compared to our version now.

     What exactly is this? Nanotechnology will be created like many products today are, and that is through computer modeling and simulations. Despite this, the technology itself will work all by itself and won't need human intervention since it would be hard to fix things that small. There will be nano size versions of parts today such as engines, computer chips, and even brakes. One by one, the atoms will be stacked together to form a product that can be nano size itself or perhaps your new car!

     How far is this though? Merkle said the first assembled molecular 3D object won't happen for a few years, yet a comment pointed out that this happened already since that talk. The surprising part is that it came a little over a year later. The way it occurs has an interesting analogy according to Neil Champness:

       “It is the molecular equivalent of throwing a pile of bricks up into the air and then as they       come down again they spontaneously build a house”

                     http://www.gizmag.com/3d-molecular-structures-built-on-surface/17066/

     Flattening the world is what nanotechnology will do. No longer  will one need massive real estate to make things, albeit they will need some space to store and ship. Regardless, more importantly, today's cost comes from powering and using machines to make the machines as well as the raw material. In this nanotechnology age, all one needs is adequate computing power which itself is growing incredibly fast instead of the bulky machines. Remember dial-up in 1996 and the "beep" when connecting? Now one can watch a movie on the computer when videos were rare on the Internet a few years back.

   This technology will be cheap to manufacture, and so the prices of the products could possibly be much cheaper than today after the initial novelty wears off. This makes it easier for countries to implement nano-help programs where an advanced country can provide nanotechnology at an affordable rate to help the impoverish will illness, pollution, energy, water, food, and even vision or teeth. Nearly anything made by people can be reproduced on an atomic level if manufacturing is perfected. Also, those poor people with access to a decent computer can educate themselves with online tutorials (that are getting more advanced) and create art, videos, technology, and software that are on a college level.

     In conclusion, nanotechnology will fundamentally change our world in a way that will lower costs, make innovation possible for anyone, and allow atomic precision to improve everything we make today. Overall, nanotechnology is inevitable in our scientific evolution. A concern that I ask to anyone who wishes should ponder is this: what will happen to jobs in a world where manufacturing doesn't need people? I believe that there will be, for the foreseeable future, a human part of manufacturing, but millions employed today can possibly lose their jobs to this technology. The ethics of infusing machines in bodies will definitely meet resistance. How this will be resolved are issues of the future.


     

Two Eras and Deals Abound

     We live in a quagmire of sorts in our present day. Economic concerns seem to be the most important issue to Americans. We discussed in class the way to spur growth and that is via infrastructure, education, government, and environment. In his speech this past week, Obama proposed a set of measures that has reflections of an earlier time in our history when the economy was in the rut. My aim here is to show the relevance of the speech to class discussion while providing a historical parallel.

     Yes, Obama has indeed proposed a set New New Deal I guess you can call it. He emphasized heavily job creation, particularly in construction. He goes as far as to suggest a construction fund that would evaluate the potential needs for construction projects on what would probably be an application process. Of course, there was the political banter abound, but he his overall picture painted a plan that is right out of FDR's desk (pun intended). He suggested what he called temporary work for those unemployed as well as an extension of benefits for them. For business, he wants faster patents, lower business international trade barriers, and more manufacturing at home. Furthermore, a $1500 tax credit awaits families.

     Then he made a reach over party lines to subject all government regulation to review to see if it helps the health, safety, and security of Americans as a litmus test. He invoked the memory of Lincoln by describing how Lincoln looked to the future amidst a Civil War by laying out plans the Trans-Continental Railroad, National Academy of Sciences, and land grant universities. But, he did again express his desire to tax high income earners. He concluded by highlighting the urgency of the situation with lines like "Pass this bill now", "Americans don't have the luxury of 14 months", or we cannot be in a "race to the bottom".

     Now that we highlighted some issues addressed in the speech, let's look at what the big picture is. In a straight forward manner, this is a piece of legislation remnant of the New Deal. The priority is creating jobs in construction, and the temporary work is a rehash of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Renovation and stabilizing social programs, such as Medicare, and not getting rid of them was part of Obama's plan. The Second New Deal included the Wagner Act which had the Social Security Act. What seems to me like the "Obama Deal" is trying to do is lift small businesses while the Roosevelt was interested in uplifting farms, the popular small business of that day.

     At the same time, this is like Friedman's idea of improving education (hiring teachers), infrastructure (transportation), government (government aid and regulation review), and finally environment (lower trade barriers, tax credits to hiring businesses). The infrastructure improvement is echoed by the Brooking's institure as follows:

          "Reflecting the fact that infrastructure produces public as well as private goods, we should create public  incentives for much larger private capital investments in public infrastructure."

            Source: Brookings Institute

     I think it's really ironic that we covered these points on the same week the President makes a speech entailing all four. Now, what's political banter remnant of a rally and reality will have to stand the test of time of course.

     Personally, I can care less for the fluff. Words that inspire and numbers to back it up is what is needed. Obama, while being heckled at times, seemed to garner support and not just politeness on the part of Congress. How long will that last? It may be gone already for all we know, and that is why actions speak louder than words. Their votes dictate their stance, special-interest based or not. Obama will need strong speeches all over the country to change the tide since Keynes "animal spirits" such as consumer confidence surely affect economic growth.

   The numbers themselves are not apparent since the bill isn't even passed. But, let's compare graphs of industrial production and unemployment from 1933 (the start of the New Deal) to the end of the Great Depression. First, the DOW Jones:

Clearly, the stock market liked Roosevelt's deal. How about the industrial output?
                          

     The production output jumped sharply in the 100 days but then faced an oscillation for awhile. It then rebounded strongly followed by a dip when FDR actually cut programs. So, his emphasis on temporary work and construction did in fact get engines moving. Predictably, GDP followed a path similar to industrial production as did employment.

     I can say that, based on these graphs, programs like these have helped the country in the past. However, the relevance of these ideas in our modern age has to be seen. I would say the bane of an economy is people working and trade occurring with easy business flow. Employing people to work on projects of national importance like transportation is a good idea since they would be just watching American Idol otherwise. Creating incentives for businesses to hire is the best way to appeal since they speak the language of money. Is it a good idea to keep these around long-term? I'll leave that to another day. For now, I will say this: the four pillars Friedman outlined are of considerable importance to growth. If we don't invest in these basic ideas while cutting spending where needed, we will be on a quagmire for years to come.

How Chances at Economic Equality Sum Zero

     According to Duke University, a so-called zero-sum game is as follows: "a type of game wherein one player can gain only at the expense of another player". This is a principle that is generally applicable to anything with finite resources, but this game theory hypothesis has a presence in economics. It is something that many wish for and even hippies preached, and that is equality of all people.

    A hope like this is futile.

    Don't get me wrong. I would like to see a world where all people have a chance to live and prosper and not have it be dependent upon their circumstances. Nonetheless, this kind of event will never occur so as long as people are attached to wealth, status, and comfort. As you can see, it has to be a change in collective culture and perhaps a suppression of natural human tendencies. A bunch of lawmakers can force as much policy and economic initiatives as possible, but there will always be not only an inequality, but a sharp one.

     The greed and thirst for power have to be abolished from those in positions of influence. How is this a zero-sum game? Well, there is only so much wealth and resources that can be passed around. Thus, if the CEO makes more money, the chances of it being out of the workers pockets is high. This wealth inequality is painfully apparent in America where the top 5% have 62% of the nation's wealth.



     The graph is courtesy of the University of California, Santa Cruz. What stands out is the bottom 80% of people own 7% of wealth. Upon further inspection of the site, you can see that the bottom 40% own just 0.3% of wealth. Think of how absurd that is. Nearly 120,000 million people in our country have 0.3% of wealth while the top 1% have 43% of the overall riches. To me, that shows how there's a wealth struggle between the haves and the have-nots.

    So, my assertion now is that Friedman's attempt to dig other countries out is impossible if we have our own problems of economic equality. His view in our current world is clearly the rosy glass vision with his ground being less stable than standing on spring-time ice patches.

    Not only is there a wealth inequality, but there is also a resource zero-sum game. There is only so much material that can be processed to make goods. Furthermore, there is a limit on energy that can be used. It has been remarked numerous times that our energy use on a world scale is just not possible. The fossil fuels are our main energy source and there is a strain on these supplies as is. Therefore, for any progress to be made, the wealthy nations will have to downgrade their standard of living in order to bring the other countries up.

To think that 7 billion people (and growing fast) can live at the American level is a ridiculous notion. Friedman thinks the flatteners will create some sort of utopia has little chance at best. There has to be an overhaul in world values, national perceptions, and some belt tightening for world economic equality to ever come to fruition. 

Here are some links I used if anyone's interested:
http://www.duke.edu/~charvey/Classes/wpg/bfglosz.htm
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Till next time, I predict a win for the opening football game!