Will Blog for Food

We Don't Need More Stuff; We Need a Different Way of Distributing the Stuff We Have.

by John Lawrence

Everyone is talking about how to get the economy moving again and how to create jobs. President Obama talks about "winning the future." This means more education, more entrepreneurialism, more new industries, more new products for consumers to buy. Surely, all this new economic activity is exactly what we need or is it? Since the GDP of the US is dependent on consumers consuming to the tune of 70% of the entire economy, it stands to reason that for the economy to expand, consumers need to consume more. But wait a minute. We are already stuffed to the gills with products rammed down our throats by TV advertisers. Maybe what we need is less consumption. Americans are already experiencing an epidemic of obesity. We should be consuming less fast food. But that would bring the profits of McDonald's down. They might even have to lay off employees. Their stock might plummet. Wal-Mart offers us a plethora of cheap crap made in China. But if we stopped buying it, Wal-Mart's profits would go down, their stock price would tumble and the Dow Jones average might even find itself in bear market territory. Everyone agrees that this would be terrible for the economy. But it might be good for the citizens.

I say we need to participate less in the market economy and be more self-subsistent. This would result in a decrease in GDP, but an increase in citizen independence. The more we rely on ourselves to fulfill our needs, the less we rely on the market economy and the better off we are when that economy goes kerflooey. The recent economic meltdown was all about Wall Street and their shenanigans. It was of paramount importance to bail out Wall Street and then all good things would follow. Such was the conventional wisdom. Only good things didn't follow. People's homes were foreclosed on en masse even when banks couldn't prove that they held title to the houses. Main Street, the middle class - they were not protected at all. The culprits who caused the crisis were bailed out. The average citizen who lost his job and his house and maybe even his wife was not bailed out at all. In fact Republicans are doubling down on destroying what remains of the safety net which might have helped these unfortunates to maintain the skeleton of a half way decent way of life. Congress has continued to sponsor and uphold legislation that encourages corporations to outsource jobs. The budget is to be balanced on the backs of the poor and middle class and not by asking the rich to contribute a little more. We are rapidly retreating to the Dickensian era where to ask for a little more porridge was to be answered with a "certainly not!"

What we need is not more consumption of cheap Chinese produced crap or even newly minted crap from our own entrepreneurs. What we need is a better system of distributing the immense amount of stuff that we are already capable of producing. And in particular we are in need of a more widely distributed system of ownership so that profits redound to the average citizen and not to the upper .1% who are becoming immensely wealthy far beyond their needs while the poor and middle class are being reduced to penury and poverty. What we need is a government that looks out for the little guy, not one who is all for the competitive struggle to produce more and more goods and win the future that way. How about winning the future by taking back our ability to be self-sustaining? We need to return to an era when people produced a large amount of their own food by growing it themselves instead of relying on the marketplace of consumer provided food by large agricorporations which use pesticides, herbicides and hormones to provide us with food which in most cases will not kill us right away. That will take place in 30-40 years when cancer sets in. But in a lot of cases of e coli and salmonella brought on by filthy conditions for animals in factory farms, it will kill us or sicken us immediately. So profits are concentrated in the hands of a few corporations instead of being widely distributed which would take place if there were widespread family gardening which also produces healthier foods. If everyone farmed to some extent, we would all be better off but GDP and corporate profits would decline because we wouldn't be participating to such a great extent in the market economy.

Sociologists decry the fact that in many parts of the world people are living on $2. a day. But those in this category that are rural may in fact be 98% self-subsistent. In other words they are providing for their own needs without participating in the market economy or are only participating to the tune of $2. a day. On the other hand the urban poor who are living on $2. a day may not be in a position to be self-subsistent, and they are truly poor because they have to meet all their needs by means of the market economy and $2. a day doesn't go very far. Just recently many Americans met probably 75% of their needs without participating in the market economy. Take my grandparents, for example. My Grandfather lived and worked on a small dairy farm. They had chickens and hogs and a large garden. So they provided perhaps 90% or more of their own food instead of buying it at the market. They sold milk into the marketplace in exchange for dollars which they used to purchase what they could not provide for themselves. Instead of buying oil or gas, my grandfather farmed with horses and he grew the fuel that they consumed with the result that he did his own energy production and did not have to depend on Exxon Mobil or Chevron for energy. And as a bonus horses did not pollute. Since chemicals were not available, his farming was organic by default. He learned carpentry and built his own buildings with the result he didn't have to hire a contractor. They were largely self-sufficient and self-subsistent. Of course, they made their own clothes instead of buying them in a store. Women had a whole variety of functions within the household instead of vying for jobs in the marketplace, another way in which they were self-sufficient. They actually weathered the Great Depression quite well since they weren't dependent on the market economy. Even my parents who had government jobs as teachers, the kind that Republicans are attacking today, raised chickens and had a really large garden from which they provided much of their own food. And women used to bake instead of buying prepared foods.

So maybe the answer to the economic malaise that we find ourselves in today will be solved not by creating new industries to manufacture more and better stuff but by figuring out ways to be less dependent on the marketplace and more self-sufficient. Profit centers need to be more widely dispersed instead of profits ending up in the hands of the Fortune 400. Think about it: when you participate in the market economy, the money you spend ends up in the hands of a very few and select group of corporations and wealthy individuals and families. These individuals, families and corporations have effectively captured government through their paid lobbyists so that government operates solely in their interests. Jefferson envisioned a country of independent yeoman, small farmers and craftsmen. In today's America, there are hardly any such people. Instead most rely on a job to provide them with income which they use to provide for all their needs by purchasing goods and services in the marketplace. As more and more people lose their jobs because the jobs are outsourced or are replaced by automated machines, there is no place to go but down. But the self-employed, the self-sufficient and self-subsistent will be able to provide for themselves and their families irregardless of what is happening in the marketplace. Those absolutely dependent on wages to make a living are already becoming neo-serfs needing two or three minimum wage jobs to make a go of it. The worst off are dependent on charity.

 

 

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.

by Paul Krugman

Published February 24, 2011 by the New York Times

Here’s a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn’t Cairo after all. Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular — in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision. Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to “corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises” — Mr. Bremer’s words, not the reporter’s — and to “wean people from the idea the state supports everything.”

The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.

Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.

In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?

The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.

The Rise of the New Power Co-Op Movement

by Brendan Smith

Oysterman and Labor Network for Sustainability Co-Founder

Posted: September 28, 2010 10:43 AM on Huffington Post

[Drafted with Jeremy Brecher]

Breakdown at Copenhagen. Climate legislation stalled. EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses threatened. Is climate protection dead?

Maybe not. Climate protection has gone local. Political leaders may fiddle while the world burns, but grassroots groups around the country are organizing to cut greenhouse gas emissions and build a greener future for their communities. Block by block and using every tool at their disposal, groups are fighting to green schools and workplaces; setting up networks of green job training centers; installing solar water heaters in low income communities; and halting new coal-fired power plants with both political and direct action.

One of the least known but most promising examples of this "localization" of climate politics is the greening of utility co-ops to create affordable and renewable energy, green jobs, and regional green development. These efforts may well represent the beginning of a "New Power Co-Op Movement" that can help jump start the shift to a new green economy.

Electric co-ops are owned by their customers, who are called "members" due to their dual role as customer/owner. Their primary mission is to provide access to electricity at affordable prices for every potential member in their service area.

Electric co-ops were created as one of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs in order to promote rural development. The first electric co-op was born in 1934 in the back of a furniture store in Corinth, Mississippi. Within a few years, it had thousands of counterparts across the nation.

Today, America's 930 electric cooperatives are the sole source of electricity for 42 million people in 47 states -- nearly 12 percent of the nation's population. They control $100 billion in assets and $31 billion in member equity.

What Matters in Kansas

In western Kansas, rural communities, farms, and businesses get their electricity from Midwest Energy, the electric co-op based in Hays, Kansas. The co-op has pioneered an energy conservation strategy known as "on-bill financing." It has developed a program called How$mart that provides money for energy efficiency improvements such as insulation, air sealing, and new heating and cooling systems for residential and small business consumers. Co-op members -- whether owners or tenants -- don't have to put up any money "up-front." Instead, they repay the funds through energy savings on their monthly power bills.

Members start with an energy audit to determine potential savings. The co-op develops an individualized conservation plan. Members choose a contractor. If the member moves or sells the property, the deal passes to the next customer at that location.

The program started with a pilot in four rural counties in the summer of 2008; it then spread through rural Western Kansas. A year later it had invested $1 million in more than two hundred rural homes and businesses. It is estimated that customers will save over 400,000 kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power forty homes. That will put 13,000 fewer tons of carbon dioxide into the environment over the next twenty years. The Environmental Defense Fund recently recognized How$mart as one of America's best energy innovations.

"New Power" in Kentucky

For decades residents of eastern Kentucky have been fighting Big Coal's destruction of their majestic environment and cherished way of life by coal extraction. Much of that fight is led by the statewide citizens organization Kentuckians For The Commonwealth. KFTC has deep roots in the state's impoverished mountain communities where coal is mined; many of its leaders are former coal miners. While it has engaged in direct action against mountaintop removal, it recognizes that such action is not enough. Kentuckians desperately need a new strategy for economic development, energy, and jobs. KFTC is now promoting a plan for "New Power" that would make eastern Kentucky's electric cooperatives the pivot for such a strategy.

East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) is a cooperative that is owned by 16 local electric distribution coops. EKPC generates and sells power to these co-ops, which serve half a million members in 87 counties. EKPC is proposing to build a new 278-megawatt coal-burning power plant in central Kentucky along the Kentucky River at an estimated cost of nearly one billion dollars.

The Smith plant would only increase the dependence of Kentucky on coal for its energy supply and thereby increase the pressures for mountaintop removal. The struggle against the Smith plant has led KFTC to accompany its fight to save the mountains with a search for a "New Power" alternative.

With the help of KFTC, co-op members are now proposing that the co-ops not waste their funds on the Smith coal plant, but instead invest in an alternative plan to meet the power needs of their members through energy-saving and renewable energy programs. These local energy needs will be met by a combination of energy efficiency and weatherization initiatives paid through on-bill financing, along with local renewable energy, such as small-scale hydroelectric plants and rooftop solar hot water heaters. The New Power plan would cost less than the Smith Plant while meeting the same energy demand.

Such a plan would not only provide for eastern Kentucky's energy needs in a way that would protect the local environment and the global climate, it would also provide far more and better jobs. According to EKPC itself, the Smith plant will create only 700 temporary jobs at the peak of construction and 60 permanent jobs. Yet, according to the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies,an energy plan based on efficiency and renewables will create nearly 4,600 direct jobs over the same period it would take to build the Smith Plant. Members of local communities could be trained and hired for these green energy jobs.

The New Power plan would also significantly lower the utility bills of co-op members (some co-op members in eastern Kentucky spend more than 50% of income on energy). The estimated cost of electricity from the alternative plan is 17% less than the Smith coal-burning plant. Money saved could be invested in affordable housing, environmental restoration, healthcare, and other job-creating activities. (For more on KFTC's alternative program read: "A Cooperative Approach to Renewing East Kentucky".)

Co-op members in Kentucky are weighing the trade-off. According to Rachel Harrod, whose stepmother ran for a local co-op board this summer:

I believe there's an alternative that will be better for the environment, less costly to co-op members, and far more beneficial economically. The jobs generated by a clean energy portfolio would be a welcome boost to our local economy. I can't tell you how significant this would be to an area that has lost much of its agricultural base in recent years.

 

In addition to saving co-op members from paying for dirty power, a New Power program in eastern Kentucky could kick-start a broader agenda for transitioning Appalachia to the new green economy. Co-ops already have the key infrastructure in place. And instead of being controlled by for-profit investor utilities, the new facilities will literally be owned by eastern Kentucky -- the co-op owners, not distant stakeholders. These economic benefits will stay in Kentucky and reverberate through the region.

Greening Economic Democracy

Rural electric co-ops were once a model for economic democracy. David Lilienthal, a founding director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, described an electric coop annual meeting in the 1940s:

Throughout a whole day as many as 2,000 farmers and their wives and children discussed the financial and operating reports made to them by their [co-op] superintendent and board of trustees, and later while we ate a barbecue lunch watched new uses of electricity demonstrated.

 

He added,

These membership "town meetings" are not simply business sessions. They have an emotional overtone, a spiritual meaning to people who were so long denied the benefits of modern energy.

 

But many electric coops have become distant from such town meeting democracy. In eastern Kentucky, for example, elections to coop boards are rarely contested, with many of the officers serving for decades. Policies are often controlled by coal and other energy companies; as a result, Kentucky's rural electrical cooperatives are more than 90 percent dependent on coal. That makes rural Kentuckians vulnerable to rising fuel prices and coal depletion.

Building the new green economy will require the revival of democracy -- at every level. That's why co-op members, with the help of KFTC, have begun challenging the entrenched leadership of local co-op boards. This year, KFTC members Dallas Ratliff and Tona Barkley ran for the board of the Owen Electrical Cooperative. In her campaign materials Barkley says:

As a board member, I will strive to make the co-op more open and democratic. I'll also promote a stronger approach to helping members improve the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses and a more aggressive approach to transitioning into more renewable sources of energy -- to protect members from rising energy costs, to protect our health, and to create local jobs.

Like Tona, hundreds of KFTC members throughout the state see a clear link between new democratic power and new clean energy power.

Such a program could be a model for the 400 rural electrical co-ops with 40 million members nationwide. And that could be a significant contribution to a new strategy for protecting the global climate -- from below.