Forwarded from Barry Brooks

[This was posted to me privately instead of the World Systems Network
mailing list. For some furkakte reason, the default when you reply to a
posting is the person who sent it rather than the mailing list. I wish
Christopher Dunn-Chase would fix this.]

Louis,

I hope you like my essay as much as I liked your email:

"...And so what is the lesson? I guess that the only revolution which truly
deserves the name is the one that is directed at the propertied by the
propertyless... "

Any comments would be welcome...

Durable Economics

We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's needs without
making too much pollution and without running out of resources rapidly. Our
present consumer economy has many nice features, yet it is basically at
odds with resource stewardship.

Using durability to conserve will allow consumption to drop to sustainable
levels.  Cutting consumption will cut profits and paid jobs, but as
durability is introduced people will be acquiring a stock of long-lasting
goods.  When we use durability to conserve any resulting fall in income is
preceeded by a fall in need for replacement goods.

The main function of he consumer economy is to provide the demand
stimulation which leads to full employment.  This growing demand has
prevented machines from causing unemployment, and it has placed heavy
demands on natural resources.

Wage labor has been surplus relative to local natural resources for a long
time. In today's crowded world migration can no longer provide an escape
from depleted local resources, and imported resources are no longer
abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage of resources we
still pretend that labor shortage is limiting production. Our fear of labor
shortage is obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been
necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in order maintain
full employment.

Most people agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money
to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful
technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many
resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in our dreams is
there no conflict between expanding the economy to make jobs and
contracting the economy to conserve resources.

Our labor is surplus only relative to resources and the production of
physical goods. Most people need a job that pays, and have little time left
for the work of nurturing, caring and stewardship. There is plenty of
important unpaid work to do, but we can't start doing it if we are all
working full time to produce and consume as much as possible. Today we can
do the work that makes a short-term dollar profit, while unpaid work is
mostly neglected.

Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from
nature and inheritance more than from any work we do. To make our system
work under present conditions we must admit that human labor is no longer
scarce because machines with computer control can replace most paid labor,
even in services.  Our claim on the resources which provide the base of
both durable and perishable wealth can not be based on labor when paid jobs
are rare.

We should expect to shift our dependence from wages toward unearned income
as automation replaces more human labor. Our system already has unearned
income, but for now it is only for a few. Ending our dependence on wages is
one key to the locked doors of becoming sustainable. Unearned income
combined can end our dependence on jobs.

The resource base of our income has always been unearned, because nature
can not be paid for the resources we take. Thus, prices and wages are
mostly about the division of labor among humans. That's why the labor
theory of value is true.

As machines replace more human labor, wages costs fall along with the
prices of manufactured goods. If all human labor could be replaced, then
wage income would fall to zero leaving only income from profit.  We will
need to notice this basic trend soon so we can rethink our assumptions
about our pretense that everyone should be busy busy busy "earning your
living" just to be a good person.

High taxes on fuel aren't the best way to encourage  conservation. High
taxes on fuel will cause suffering and  poverty, and people who can hardly
afford to heat their houses can't afford to replace them with an efficient
house either. Instead of taxing consumption, we need to support the low
cost replacement of wasteful houses and cars with efficient models, and to
make laws against the production of wasteful goods.

Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help
improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system to have
hope for our families.  The need to make jobs and the resulting excess
growth are the causes of our high consumption, and high consumption is the
reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem
of all classes!

True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts
real paying jobs and profits. It's not surprising that almost no one
supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue
to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without
conservation we can have our giant SUVs. It is our plan to avoid change.
But, more growth is really no plan at all in the face of looming changes.

Four basic ways to conserve resources are: increased efficiency, increased
durability, recycling and by doing less. Conservation of perishables using
recycling and efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability
to conserve has had little notice. Durability allows doing less without
having less. Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain
when we starting using durability to conserve. We can make deep cuts in
consumption without sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their
life time, efficiency and reparability.

We wouldn't need to encourage growth to make jobs if everyone got some
small share of unearned income. A small income could provide a life of
luxury in a system that doesn't need to be wasteful.  A stable population
using durability to conserve will have most wealth coming from inheritance.

If we could somehow accept unearned income for all classes then we could
adjust the payments to stabilize wages. Without a need for hyper-activity
and waste just to make jobs, real conservation could be allowed to shrink
the economy and real incomes without any loss of living standards.

It's too common to hear the wierd claim that our economy needs growth.
It's like saying we need cancer.  If we had  unearned income we would no
longer need growth to make jobs.  If we had  a stable population we would
no longer need growth to provide for more people. If we used durability to
conserve we  would no longer need growth to raise our living standards.  If
earnings could regain the role lost to speculation we would no longer need
growth to please the investor.

If everyone got some unearned income, wages would remain as a motivation
and reward for those who choose to work.  Our acceptance of unearned income
could provide a mechanism allowing us to match the labor force to the real
need for labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force.

Barry Brooks

durable@earthlink.net


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org