Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peak Oil And The End Of Money -- Dr M King Hubbert's "Earthly Paradise"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 12:15 AM
Original message
Peak Oil And The End Of Money -- Dr M King Hubbert's "Earthly Paradise"
(snip)

Hubbert's ideas about work are even more heretical. Work is becoming, he says, increasingly unimportant. He thinks it is conceivable that the future work week might be on the order of 10 hours. Indeed, because production will have to be limited by increasingly limited mineral resources, that might be inevitable. And that, Hubbert stresses, could be the foundation of an earthly paradise.

(snip)

Getting something for nothing

In the distribution to the public of the products of industry, the failure of the present system is the direct result of the faulty premise upon which it is based. This is: that somehow a man is able by his personal services to render to society the equivalent of what he receives, from which it follows that the distribution to each shall be in accordance with the services rendered and that those who do not work must not eat. This is what our propagandists call 'the impossibility of getting something for nothing.' Aside from the fact that only by means of the sophistries of lawyers and economists can it be explained how, on this basis, those who do nothing at all frequently receive the largest shares of the national income, the simple fact is that it is impossible for any man to contribute to the social system the physical equivalent of what it costs the system to maintain him form birth till death--and the higher the physical standard of living the greater is this discrepancy. This is because man is an engine operating under the limitations of the same physical laws as any other engine. The energy that it takes to operate him is several times as much as any amount of work he can possibly perform. If, in addition to his food, he receives also the products of modern industry, this is due to the fact that material and energy resources happen to be available and, as compared with any contribution he can make, constitute a free gift from heaven. Stated more specifically, it costs the social system on the North American Continent the energy equivalent to nearly 10 tons of coal per year to maintain one man at the average present standard of living, and no contribution he can possibly make in terms of the energy conversion of his individual effort will ever repay the social system the cost of his social maintenance. Is it not to be wondered at, therefore, that a distributive mechanism based upon so rank a fallacy should fail to distribute; the marvel is that it has worked as well as it has. Since any human being, regardless of his personal contribution, is a social dependent with respect to the energy resources upon which society operates, and since every operation within a given society is effected at the cost of a degradation of an available supply of energy, this energy degradation, measured in appropriate physical units such as kilowatt-hours, constitutes the common physical cost of all social operations. Since also the energy-cost of maintaining a human being exceeds by a large amount his ability to repay, we can abandon the fiction that what one is to receive is in payment for what one has done, and recognize that what we are really doing is utilizing the bounty that nature has provided us. Under these circumstances we recognize that we all are getting something for nothing, and the simplest way of effecting distribution is on a basis of equality, especially so when it is considered that production can be set equal to the limit of our capacity to consume, commensurate with adequate conservation of our physical resources.

Income in Units of Energy

On this basis our distribution then becomes foolproof and incredibly simple. We keep our records of the physical costs of production in terms of the amount of extraneous energy degraded. We set industrial production arbitrarily at a rate equal to the saturation of the physical capacity of our public to consume. We distribute purchasing power in the form of energy certificates to the public, the amount issued to each being equivalent to his pro rata share of the energy-cost of the consumer goods and services to be produced during the balanced-load period for which the certificates are issued. These certificates bear the identification of the person to whom issued and are non negotiable. They resemble a bank check in that they bear no face denomination, this being entered at the time of spending. They are surrendered upon the purchase of goods or services at any center of distribution and are permanently canceled, becoming entries in a uniform accounting system. Being nonnegotiable they cannot be lost, stolen, gambled, or given away because they are invalid in the hands of any person other than the one to whom issued. If lost, like a bank checkbook, new ones may be had for the asking. Neither can they be saved because they become void at the termination of the two-year period for which they are issued. They can only be spent. Contrary to the Price System rules, the purchasing power of an individual is no longer based upon the fallacious premise that a man is being paid in proportion to the so-called 'value' of his work (since it is a physical fact that what he receives is greatly in excess of his individual effort) but upon the equal pro rata division of the net energy degraded in the production of consumer goods and services. In this manner the income of an individual is in nowise dependent upon the nature of his work, and we are then left free to reduce the working hours of our population to as low a level as technological advancement will allow, without in any manner jeopardizing the national or individual income, and without the slightest unemployment problem or poverty. "

Hubbert goes on to state that following a transition the work required of each individual, need be no longer than about 4 hours per day, 164 days per year, from the ages of 25 to 45. Income will continue until death. "Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become unnecessary and impossible."

More at:

http://hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cornfedyank Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. marooned.. till we can get off this rock
how is one worth a thousand and a thousand worth one..?? because I do not know the thousand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaedelusNemo Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. It does seem like technological improvement implies less work needed
People will find new things to want and spend time on, of course - my bet is looking for something interesting.

But yeah, don't we end up being able to do everything necessary to sustain our lifestyle with a few hours a week, and are we still going to insist on make-work jobs then? If producing wealth becomes trivially cheap, on what basis do you require everyone to work fulltime and what do you have them do?

What i don't like about Hubbert's plan is that what people get has nothing to do with what they do. There should still be some kind of encouragement to do things that benefit others or to do them better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. "Work" is essential to enforcing social class distinctions.
Edited on Thu Jan-13-05 08:41 AM by bemildred
In many cases in advanced societies, the economic work done is secondary,
or no useful work at all is done. For instance the "work" of many
managerial types these days consists of making "project plans",
"Organization charts", and PowerPoint(tm) presentations, few if any
of which have any relationship whatsoever with any useful work done
or genuine economic value being produced in the organization.

Jobs and the economy provide the pretext for enforcement of these
social and economic class categories. For these reasons they are
clung to even when they become pernicious in the purely economic
sense, when they negatively impact productivity and social integrity.

What useful work do HMOs do for all the money that flows to them?
What useful work do defense contractors do? These organizations exist
to dissipate economic value, not to create it, so as to maintain
social class structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. so true, good post bemildred
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Great post. Every word is so true.
It echoes so much of my experience of work throughout my life. The job I enjoyed most and considered the most economically and socially useful was the one that received the least pay and had the lowest social status. In my current employment the management seem to spend their entire time thinking up meaningless corporate slogans, implementing and then documenting pointless business processes, and endlessly 're-engineering' the structure of the enterprise. It is a huge exercise in futility. Modern capitalism seems increasingly to be an engine for destroying true prosperity rather than creating it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaedelusNemo Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I have noticed...
in most of the work environments i've been in, it's pretty easy to tell who gets paid the most and who gets paid the least; whoever's working the hardest is usually getting the least.

I'm sure there are exceptions, especially with the self-employed, and my sample size isn't large enough for firm conclusions. But that's what i've seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC