Zero Sum Brain

Martin Wolf’s column on zero sum growth (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0447f562-ad85-11dc-9386-0000779fd2ac.html) is the latest red herring launched by this acolyte of Chicago School economists who happily run a theoretical system of economics that simply does not correspond to the real world. The point of this debate is to distract us from what can be done today and instead to await a technological cosmic orgasm; in the meantime its business as usual for fat cats.

Sadly, over the last few decades these fellows whose outlandish constructs would never pass peer review in any other social or hard science, have managed to use the US government-business nexus to thrust their models down our throats.

It is now clear that our good fortune is based on the early deaths of our stupid ancestors – stupid because they did not figure out how to use energy stored as oil, coal and gas until recently, leaving more for us.

The use of this energy has meant that we live as human beings, not rude and crude peasants in blackened mud hovels. Well, some of us do. About half of the world still lives in blackened mud hovels. Therefore the correct zero sum question is how we get them out of that hut and into humanity. To do that we will have to consume energy – steel and concrete are non negotiable requirements for this move from hut to high rise. That is why developing countries refused to sign up to reductions in carbon intensity.

Done correctly (this means less personal transportation, better construction techniques, appropriate energy standards from day one) the additional benefits to these people need not be insanely carbon intensive.

The main benefit of the use of stored energy has been the huge increase in population. An increase in population is an immediate increase in smart people, and smart people, even if all of them are not educated, make a difference. Now that we have instantaneous, almost free communication, they make more of a difference than ever.

Much of what enriches the human experience is contact with others and the non physical works of humans. In increasingly personally isolationist America this takes the form of ipod music, personal TV’s and the rest, rather than hanging out in a café, dancing in the streets (a favourite Indian pastime) or visiting a Museum. Nonetheless, this is still rather less carbon and energy intensive than making steel and concrete. Providing such experience to former hovel dwellers ought to be relatively carbon costless. For the rest we just have to evolve new Veblen and positional goods that are not as bad for the environment as fast cars and to cut out waste (30% of UK food is chucked; Wal Mart shirts are so cheap why replace a button?).

The problem is that our measurement system for calculating the sum of human development (GDP) is rather flawed. What we need to count is carbon+ergs+material+productivity levelled human effort. Do we do that? Most economists will concede in private that we do not.

Now, we have to change how we do business or go under as a species. We sort of know where we have to get but we cannot measure where we are, so we cannot work out how to get there. Following established practice is a dead end. We are out to sea with just a portolan of the Med, when we are off the Arctic.

With these flawed tools do the Chicago Boys ridicule perfectly reasonable ideas, particularly those that come from over the seas, or from California. And nowhere do they attack more vigorously than in favour of modern agriculture and agribusiness, that bloated, inefficient, subsidy ridden, water sucking environmentally disastrous creature of modern man that provides basic energy to every living human.

Organic farming? Commie Bastard Eurotrash creation. Slow food? More of the same. Diverse cropping? Acreage based productivity? Bah, humbug.

Where would you rather potter? The cornfields of Iowa (but away from the industrial piggeries) or Normandy, where fields have all sorts of things growing in them and where Happy Holsteins sit and sit on the grass, chew cud and contemplate the ocean as they churn out the raw material for rather nice cheeses? Velveeta or Epoisse, that is the question.

It is a fact that in the US, Cuba and India (where I have seen the studies), organic farming is perfectly capable of matching the yields of industrial farming after a fall of about three years. After the three years yields come back up but costs have dropped radically because fewer oil based chemicals and patented seeds are needed. This new format requires harder manual work than industrial farming, so some of that extra contribution can be used to pay labour and substitute for industrialization. To top it off, the farms are prettier, less smelly and use much less water, while creating watersheds - both useful with global warming upon us.

Call that a zero-sum game?

A wonderful side effect? We get to reduce the size of the agribusiness sector that is responsible for shovelling high fructose corn syrup down our maws. This is not going to happen in the US, or probably even Europe, where the wondrous ones have the best scam that I have ever seen: use subsidies received from the government to lobby[sic] the servants[sicko] of the people to get more subsidies.

India has a chance to do it differently before Indian agriculture is controlled by ethanol subsidy freaks and before its retail chain is fed by refrigerated lettuce air-freighted around the country.

The government should require as part of its food safety laws and subsidy programs that all Indian farmers switch to (mostly?) organic farming at the rate of 10% or 15% of their land per year. Fertilizer and other subsidies saved can go to income support for the lower yield; over a very few years the switch should be self sustaining. Done right farmers will use lots of labour to maintain income rather than just profit which will also create much needed jobs.

And the food tastes better. Fraise de bois anyone?