In recent essays I’ve been making an affirmative case for an “economic independence” movement — that is, a concerted effort to empower families and communities to be less dependent on market and state provision. I’ve argued that a move toward greater independence would help to
"I remain reasonably confident that the United States will succeed in maintaining liberal democratic institutions even in the face of the current populist authoritarian challenge."
I'm more worried about the US than about any other country in what used to be called "the West". Trump has to have at least a 30 per cent chance of being elected President in 2024, whether or not he is convicted and imprisoned by then. And that will be that for US democracy.
Even excluding Trump, the Republicans now are well to the right of fascist-derived parties like those of Meloni, Le Pen etc. The closest analogues are BJP, Fidesz, PiS, Likud etc (ethno-religious authoritarians)
I'm reasonably confident -- like 70%, as you say -- that Trump won't be elected in 2024, and that peaceful transfers of power will continue. I'm not confident about the prospects for US politics above that low bar, though -- not despairing, but not confident.
I'm moderately hopeful that if Trump loses demography will keep the Repubs out for quite a while, during which time they may be transformed or replaced. But 70 per cent is not as good a chance as I would like.
Brink, I agree that we need to build local redundant distributed energy supplies and use circular production using high and low tech, where we import electrons as designs, rather than atoms as products. That said, a UBI can be a stepping stone where it is set to keep the labor market in dynamic balance. It could be managed as an independent authority (like the Central Bank). As automation, virtualization, AI and the shift to new forms of energy takes place many jobs will be negatively impacted. As unemployment rises, the UBI can be raised. As it is raised, people will choose to stop looking for work, or cut back their hours, or leave paid work altogether, to pursue other interests. This will leave an opening for those who still need/want the work. It will also facilitate retraining. And it will act like a 'strike fund', allowing collective bargaining to better share the fruits of increasing productivity. As it would be paid to everyone, it would be very difficult for the government to eliminate the UBI, especially if it is managed by an independent authority under its own charter. Basic Income Australia Limited is a not-for-profit currently working to gather support for this initiative. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTe8F6qQg5M&list=PLmh_ES7MaUhhlfzPJrqk_1pnNvWiQdOdS. You should also team up with Jon Kolber who wrote 'A Celebration Society'. I can put you in touch if you are interested. Contact me at m.haines@vanzi.com.au
I'm familiar with the idea of a "circular economy" because a Dutch guy visited us here in the U.S. and explained it: my limited take-away is that manufacturing builds in the collection and re-use of the materials in its products (so that when you buy a phone, it comes with an easy and obvious way to "send it back" to the manufacturer or the manufacturer's agents.)
Not sure what "electrons as designs" vs. "atoms as products" means, but it sounds intriguing.
It means that if you have the materials, energy and equipment to make locally, you can still have the 'world's best' products by licensing designs (importing electrons), rather than importing the products themselves (atoms). It would greatly reduce energy use and time to market. If we use 'flexible cells' (that can make single units of a wide range of designs in any order, we can increase volume by adding 'cells', so that you can also keep down inventory. By eliminating production lines, and using many cells, any equipment failure in a cell will have minimal impact on overall production.
Jun 15, 2023·edited Jun 15, 2023Liked by Brink Lindsey
A couple of my gut reactions. Unlike many Americans I know, I don't have a knee-jerk revulsion to the words "federal government". I look at all the rights I've been entitled to through it, and I look at all of the good things the federal government has done (the various amendments to the Constitution, for starters), and when I consider my own place in society, I am far more inclined to trust the federal government than I am my state government, for example, in which the majority party espouses a provincial/parochial viewpoint on issues that I consider of vital interest. That said, like Brink, I do worry about the government's ability to surveil us. I suppose it's in the nature of government, to a degree; the more knowledge they have of our comings and goings and thoughts ad feelings, the more accurately the bureaucrats and politicians feel they understand us. It also helps them plan how to control us better, so to speak. I'm a bit pessimistic in that sense, because I see the federal government as an entity that knows more about our lives, and that's not always a good thing. But I don't see any changes coming soon: I think all levels of government will increasingly be engaged in surveilling us, and I doubt there's a realistic way we can stop it. But this is not to say that I believe the government qua external entity is solely responsible for this situation, for although we do not (yet) have the kind of "social credit" and official surveillance that's found in China, we in America and the West at large FREELY give of our personal information to all and sundry! Social media profiles, online purchases, etc.; we are voluntarily giving up our data to both governmental and corporate sources, and we're not even being compelled to. Add to that the increased proliferation of surveillance cameras (I've noted more and more going up in my own city), and I fear that our sense of "privacy" is eroding, both by what we choose to share and what we have no control over. I do like Brink's idea of creating an independent counterweight to centralized authority, but in light of my comments regarding my fears about an ever-stronger government (and concomitant to that, increased surveillance), I'm not exactly sure what this independent counterweight would look like here in my neck of the woods, nor am I sure how it would induce me to participate in it. I shan't be moving to Walden Pond, nor shall I be joining a housing cooperative. I'm hoping Brink continues to flesh out more contours of what this project would look like.
I was wondering when Republican would rear its ugly head. The word freedom has been completely fubared by that political party. In my opinion one powerful way to construct the “economic independence movement” is to not demonize unions. They have a habit of cooling the jets of a rampant oligarchy. Yes they have the smell of socialism but isn’t that what you are espousing?
When I talk about republicanism (with a small r), I'm talking about a philosophy similar to that of Lincoln and other early Republicans -- almost no trace of which is visible in the current GOP. And I agree that unions could play a vital role, though I think current US labor legislation is outmoded and needs to be rethought from the ground up.
Here's a semi-paradoxical thought: there are some technologies of global interdependence that are complements, rather than competitors, to resilient and decentralized loci of independence. An example is satellite communications constellations. Any relatively-independent community worth its salt will need to have reliable communications with other such communities across the world. The fact that one can get Starlink internet service, or Garmin-via-Iridium text communications, absolutely anywhere is a powerful form of independence from earthbound corporate- or government-run communications services. And it would be even better for resilience if there were more competing services like this, especially services based in different countries. But in any case the complementary power of this kind of service depends on its global reach. What other services or technologies are like this? I suspect there are several.
I'm not sure your examples of global internet are independent and resilient, since they are instances of very expensive global infrastructure. Of the two private-sector firms mentioned, I'd count on only one at this point as being mature enough to count on for the long term, which leaves us pretty much with a monopoly. It seems like stable governments are more reliable (if you look at the global availability of GPS, the other use for those satellites.)
From what I know about cellular technology, it appears to be local, private-sector, competitive and uses redundant global hardware (not just satellite but undersea fiber-optic, I believe.)
"Under those dire circumstances, the scale of the loss could cause irreparable harm. If Taiwan’s semiconductor industry were wiped out, would we retain the engineering competence to replace what had been lost? If national electrical grids were knocked out for months, or years, would we ever figure out how to turn the lights back on?"
My feeling here, is that the answer is "no." With a knockout blow like this, entropy takes over. Technology is interdependent with itself and underlying societal "infrastructure." If electrical grids are knocked out, everything collapses. Overnight, we are back to the stone age, probably for good. We will live in the ruins of our cities as they decay beyond repair, much like people did after of the fall of the Roman Empire.
"I remain reasonably confident that the United States will succeed in maintaining liberal democratic institutions even in the face of the current populist authoritarian challenge."
I'm more worried about the US than about any other country in what used to be called "the West". Trump has to have at least a 30 per cent chance of being elected President in 2024, whether or not he is convicted and imprisoned by then. And that will be that for US democracy.
Even excluding Trump, the Republicans now are well to the right of fascist-derived parties like those of Meloni, Le Pen etc. The closest analogues are BJP, Fidesz, PiS, Likud etc (ethno-religious authoritarians)
I'm reasonably confident -- like 70%, as you say -- that Trump won't be elected in 2024, and that peaceful transfers of power will continue. I'm not confident about the prospects for US politics above that low bar, though -- not despairing, but not confident.
I'm moderately hopeful that if Trump loses demography will keep the Repubs out for quite a while, during which time they may be transformed or replaced. But 70 per cent is not as good a chance as I would like.
Brink, I agree that we need to build local redundant distributed energy supplies and use circular production using high and low tech, where we import electrons as designs, rather than atoms as products. That said, a UBI can be a stepping stone where it is set to keep the labor market in dynamic balance. It could be managed as an independent authority (like the Central Bank). As automation, virtualization, AI and the shift to new forms of energy takes place many jobs will be negatively impacted. As unemployment rises, the UBI can be raised. As it is raised, people will choose to stop looking for work, or cut back their hours, or leave paid work altogether, to pursue other interests. This will leave an opening for those who still need/want the work. It will also facilitate retraining. And it will act like a 'strike fund', allowing collective bargaining to better share the fruits of increasing productivity. As it would be paid to everyone, it would be very difficult for the government to eliminate the UBI, especially if it is managed by an independent authority under its own charter. Basic Income Australia Limited is a not-for-profit currently working to gather support for this initiative. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTe8F6qQg5M&list=PLmh_ES7MaUhhlfzPJrqk_1pnNvWiQdOdS. You should also team up with Jon Kolber who wrote 'A Celebration Society'. I can put you in touch if you are interested. Contact me at m.haines@vanzi.com.au
I'm familiar with the idea of a "circular economy" because a Dutch guy visited us here in the U.S. and explained it: my limited take-away is that manufacturing builds in the collection and re-use of the materials in its products (so that when you buy a phone, it comes with an easy and obvious way to "send it back" to the manufacturer or the manufacturer's agents.)
Not sure what "electrons as designs" vs. "atoms as products" means, but it sounds intriguing.
It means that if you have the materials, energy and equipment to make locally, you can still have the 'world's best' products by licensing designs (importing electrons), rather than importing the products themselves (atoms). It would greatly reduce energy use and time to market. If we use 'flexible cells' (that can make single units of a wide range of designs in any order, we can increase volume by adding 'cells', so that you can also keep down inventory. By eliminating production lines, and using many cells, any equipment failure in a cell will have minimal impact on overall production.
A couple of my gut reactions. Unlike many Americans I know, I don't have a knee-jerk revulsion to the words "federal government". I look at all the rights I've been entitled to through it, and I look at all of the good things the federal government has done (the various amendments to the Constitution, for starters), and when I consider my own place in society, I am far more inclined to trust the federal government than I am my state government, for example, in which the majority party espouses a provincial/parochial viewpoint on issues that I consider of vital interest. That said, like Brink, I do worry about the government's ability to surveil us. I suppose it's in the nature of government, to a degree; the more knowledge they have of our comings and goings and thoughts ad feelings, the more accurately the bureaucrats and politicians feel they understand us. It also helps them plan how to control us better, so to speak. I'm a bit pessimistic in that sense, because I see the federal government as an entity that knows more about our lives, and that's not always a good thing. But I don't see any changes coming soon: I think all levels of government will increasingly be engaged in surveilling us, and I doubt there's a realistic way we can stop it. But this is not to say that I believe the government qua external entity is solely responsible for this situation, for although we do not (yet) have the kind of "social credit" and official surveillance that's found in China, we in America and the West at large FREELY give of our personal information to all and sundry! Social media profiles, online purchases, etc.; we are voluntarily giving up our data to both governmental and corporate sources, and we're not even being compelled to. Add to that the increased proliferation of surveillance cameras (I've noted more and more going up in my own city), and I fear that our sense of "privacy" is eroding, both by what we choose to share and what we have no control over. I do like Brink's idea of creating an independent counterweight to centralized authority, but in light of my comments regarding my fears about an ever-stronger government (and concomitant to that, increased surveillance), I'm not exactly sure what this independent counterweight would look like here in my neck of the woods, nor am I sure how it would induce me to participate in it. I shan't be moving to Walden Pond, nor shall I be joining a housing cooperative. I'm hoping Brink continues to flesh out more contours of what this project would look like.
I was wondering when Republican would rear its ugly head. The word freedom has been completely fubared by that political party. In my opinion one powerful way to construct the “economic independence movement” is to not demonize unions. They have a habit of cooling the jets of a rampant oligarchy. Yes they have the smell of socialism but isn’t that what you are espousing?
When I talk about republicanism (with a small r), I'm talking about a philosophy similar to that of Lincoln and other early Republicans -- almost no trace of which is visible in the current GOP. And I agree that unions could play a vital role, though I think current US labor legislation is outmoded and needs to be rethought from the ground up.
Here's a semi-paradoxical thought: there are some technologies of global interdependence that are complements, rather than competitors, to resilient and decentralized loci of independence. An example is satellite communications constellations. Any relatively-independent community worth its salt will need to have reliable communications with other such communities across the world. The fact that one can get Starlink internet service, or Garmin-via-Iridium text communications, absolutely anywhere is a powerful form of independence from earthbound corporate- or government-run communications services. And it would be even better for resilience if there were more competing services like this, especially services based in different countries. But in any case the complementary power of this kind of service depends on its global reach. What other services or technologies are like this? I suspect there are several.
I'm not sure your examples of global internet are independent and resilient, since they are instances of very expensive global infrastructure. Of the two private-sector firms mentioned, I'd count on only one at this point as being mature enough to count on for the long term, which leaves us pretty much with a monopoly. It seems like stable governments are more reliable (if you look at the global availability of GPS, the other use for those satellites.)
From what I know about cellular technology, it appears to be local, private-sector, competitive and uses redundant global hardware (not just satellite but undersea fiber-optic, I believe.)
"Under those dire circumstances, the scale of the loss could cause irreparable harm. If Taiwan’s semiconductor industry were wiped out, would we retain the engineering competence to replace what had been lost? If national electrical grids were knocked out for months, or years, would we ever figure out how to turn the lights back on?"
My feeling here, is that the answer is "no." With a knockout blow like this, entropy takes over. Technology is interdependent with itself and underlying societal "infrastructure." If electrical grids are knocked out, everything collapses. Overnight, we are back to the stone age, probably for good. We will live in the ruins of our cities as they decay beyond repair, much like people did after of the fall of the Roman Empire.
I
I hope we don't have to find out-- and if we do, I hope you're wrong!