Thanks for the inspiring vision Zak. I am a proud Sunriser who is figuring out where to go from here. Two questions for you. First: America was so ascendant post World War II because we had productive capacity like no one else. But now humans across the world have increased production capacity. Should we be worried that building new industries will create a glut of manufacturing products worldwide? Whether China should build electric cars, or we should build electric cars — why build more if there’s already globally enough? How do you respond to worries about global gluts? Second: prices. Obviously cheaper in the short-term to buy a Chinese electric car. Is it true that you’re asking us to bear short-term costs in order to rebuild American industry? I’m down with it, but maybe we should say that upfront? “We are buying American. That’s going to cost you $20,000 more on your car. But that’s a down payment on American industry and a thriving economy that benefits you.” Hmmmm. Please advise :)
The world has nowhere near enough capacity to accomplish the transition to a clean economy in time to avert climate catastrophe. Even if consumption stayed flat or even if it radically declined, we still need to replace billions of machines and facilities that are emitting green house gasses. The world is converting very sluggishly - partly because supply isn’t there. We need the rich countries to finance the transition with a global marshal plan, and then we need to build like crazy
There’s no reason the US needs to make EVs so much less efficiently than China. Labor costs are a tiny slice of the equation. And wages in advanced factories in China aren’t that low. The reason our EVs are so expensive relative to China are many: 1) Elon actually sucks as the leader of Tesla. Tesla got so many bailouts, loans, subsidies, and made so much off carbon credits and bitcoin, that it didn’t need to compete fanatically on efficiency. 2) China has HUNDREDS of EV startups, all competing and contributing to a vibrant and extremely efficient manufacturing base. Meanwhile, Elon punches down to hurt the chances of Polestar and Rivian. 3) The Chinese government encourages that massive EV sector by encouraging EV sales and charging infrastructure- not primarily by pouring government money into the pocket on ONE ceo like we do in the US.
If we did the Mission for America, US cars would be competitive with Chinese cars. We need this for Americas means of making a living, but also to supply the world with all the EVs it needs fast enough to avoid climate catastrophe.
Your mention of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation reminded me of Robert Hockett's "Private Wealth and Public Goods: A Case for a National Investment Authority" -- If my memory serves me correctly.
My thinking runs parallel, but I don't have the technical chops to talk about it. My heroes in my youth were Ursula LeGuin, and Arthur C. Clarke, and Asimov, and others, authors of speculative fiction.
I keep hoping that popular culture will produce speculative fiction that presents the ideas that New Consensus and some others talk about. I like to say that the revitalized world in which we wish to live will lead to happiness for everyone. We tend to think that vast wealth brings happiness for a few, but the consequence is poverty and discomfort, to say the least, for a great many people living in or near poverty. In a revised, retooled economy, we would live happy and prosperous lives -- doing work that needs to be done, instead of work designed only to create wealth for a few. We could devote our entire economy to repairing and healing the damage we humans have inflicted on the planet for the past few centuries. Or is that just me dreaming?
We seem to have the same goals. I describe myself as a New Dealer in that I want a second New Deal, and it seems you want something like that tool. We differ on how this is done. A key difference is where you write:
“The processes of the first category — those that take care of and drive themselves given a certain set of conditions and inputs — correspond in an economy to processes such as invention and entrepreneurship. These are things that individuals and companies do naturally, or automatically— given, the right set of conditions and inputs."
I believe the italicized part describe capitalism, which is hardly automatic or natural. I believe it was created by Western states, initially for state purposes, but soon took on a life of its own.
I believe the key to what you want to achieve is this capitalism component. What you want is what capitalism was invented for. But you have to have the right kind of capitalism. Since capitalism (and the entire economy for that matter) are ultimately cultural constructs, they undergo cultural evolution. What the New Dealers (unwittingly) did was create an economic environment that selected for stakeholder capitalism (SC) culture. The Reagan revolution changed the economy environment back to one that selected for shareholder primacy (SP) culture. I outline how this happens here:
Thanks for the inspiring vision Zak. I am a proud Sunriser who is figuring out where to go from here. Two questions for you. First: America was so ascendant post World War II because we had productive capacity like no one else. But now humans across the world have increased production capacity. Should we be worried that building new industries will create a glut of manufacturing products worldwide? Whether China should build electric cars, or we should build electric cars — why build more if there’s already globally enough? How do you respond to worries about global gluts? Second: prices. Obviously cheaper in the short-term to buy a Chinese electric car. Is it true that you’re asking us to bear short-term costs in order to rebuild American industry? I’m down with it, but maybe we should say that upfront? “We are buying American. That’s going to cost you $20,000 more on your car. But that’s a down payment on American industry and a thriving economy that benefits you.” Hmmmm. Please advise :)
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for your questions! The short answers are:
The world has nowhere near enough capacity to accomplish the transition to a clean economy in time to avert climate catastrophe. Even if consumption stayed flat or even if it radically declined, we still need to replace billions of machines and facilities that are emitting green house gasses. The world is converting very sluggishly - partly because supply isn’t there. We need the rich countries to finance the transition with a global marshal plan, and then we need to build like crazy
There’s no reason the US needs to make EVs so much less efficiently than China. Labor costs are a tiny slice of the equation. And wages in advanced factories in China aren’t that low. The reason our EVs are so expensive relative to China are many: 1) Elon actually sucks as the leader of Tesla. Tesla got so many bailouts, loans, subsidies, and made so much off carbon credits and bitcoin, that it didn’t need to compete fanatically on efficiency. 2) China has HUNDREDS of EV startups, all competing and contributing to a vibrant and extremely efficient manufacturing base. Meanwhile, Elon punches down to hurt the chances of Polestar and Rivian. 3) The Chinese government encourages that massive EV sector by encouraging EV sales and charging infrastructure- not primarily by pouring government money into the pocket on ONE ceo like we do in the US.
If we did the Mission for America, US cars would be competitive with Chinese cars. We need this for Americas means of making a living, but also to supply the world with all the EVs it needs fast enough to avoid climate catastrophe.
I am very happy to read New Consensus again.
Your mention of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation reminded me of Robert Hockett's "Private Wealth and Public Goods: A Case for a National Investment Authority" -- If my memory serves me correctly.
(https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2757&context=facpub)
Please forgive me if I missed the mark here.
My thinking runs parallel, but I don't have the technical chops to talk about it. My heroes in my youth were Ursula LeGuin, and Arthur C. Clarke, and Asimov, and others, authors of speculative fiction.
I keep hoping that popular culture will produce speculative fiction that presents the ideas that New Consensus and some others talk about. I like to say that the revitalized world in which we wish to live will lead to happiness for everyone. We tend to think that vast wealth brings happiness for a few, but the consequence is poverty and discomfort, to say the least, for a great many people living in or near poverty. In a revised, retooled economy, we would live happy and prosperous lives -- doing work that needs to be done, instead of work designed only to create wealth for a few. We could devote our entire economy to repairing and healing the damage we humans have inflicted on the planet for the past few centuries. Or is that just me dreaming?
Cheers!
We seem to have the same goals. I describe myself as a New Dealer in that I want a second New Deal, and it seems you want something like that tool. We differ on how this is done. A key difference is where you write:
“The processes of the first category — those that take care of and drive themselves given a certain set of conditions and inputs — correspond in an economy to processes such as invention and entrepreneurship. These are things that individuals and companies do naturally, or automatically— given, the right set of conditions and inputs."
I believe the italicized part describe capitalism, which is hardly automatic or natural. I believe it was created by Western states, initially for state purposes, but soon took on a life of its own.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/a-take-on-how-the-scientific-revolution
I believe the key to what you want to achieve is this capitalism component. What you want is what capitalism was invented for. But you have to have the right kind of capitalism. Since capitalism (and the entire economy for that matter) are ultimately cultural constructs, they undergo cultural evolution. What the New Dealers (unwittingly) did was create an economic environment that selected for stakeholder capitalism (SC) culture. The Reagan revolution changed the economy environment back to one that selected for shareholder primacy (SP) culture. I outline how this happens here:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-economic-culture-evolves
An explanation of why the modern economic environment (neoliberalism) doesn’t so what you want is given here
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
and why it needs to go
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/why-neoliberalism-should-be-replaced/comments