Gone Missing

Someone commented recently that they prefer my economic and resource analysis to my political analysis.  

I prefer my economic and resource analysis, too.

The political landscape will dictate the economic and resource issues, and that landscape has yet to feel the effects of $35 Trillion in wealth gone missing.

If you think we had "change" in this recent election, you ain't seen nothing yet.  Just wait until the resource constraints rear their ugly head in earnest.  For decades the politics of the U.S. was really about waging war with each other to gain access to that "wealth", the "issues" were just side shows to keep people occupied. Now, more than half that wealth is gone, and the owners of what is left just might react in ways TPTB did not consider when TPTB try to take it from them.

I received this comment 1 post back from Donal Lang, a long time reader:

Hi Greg

Your experience of Mennonites is my experience of living in an isolated rural mountain village in the French Alps (but only 2 hours from Cannes!). Yes, the family/political ties are strong, but so are the school ties and church ties; its just about knowing each others' personalities really well. Yes, they make judgements about who is worth 'saving' and who's put themselves into trouble (drink, drugs, antisocial behaviour), but wouldn't most of us prefer it if our government-led socialist system would make some of those judgements too?

We seem to have a definition problem with 'Liberal Democracy' and liberal social policies. I'd disagree vehemently with the idea that the US invented these; they inherited all of their political and social systems from European immigrants. The French gave you the revolution and most of your Constitution (and the Statue of Liberty too!) The Swedish and Germans gave you much of your social structure, and the Italians gave you pizza, and the Mafia(or 'politics' as you call it!). As a country you came damned close to speaking French! Now, there's a thought worth pondering ;-)

In my view it was wealth which gave you the possibility of redistributive social programs to replace the ad-hoc systems, especially necessary in a fractured new society, and every wealthier country has made similar choices through the ages. Switzerland, Germany and Scandinavia had organised social polices in the Middle Ages.

Society fixes each problem by adding a layer of complexity. Each layer of complexity adds extra maintenance (labour and energy) and makes the structure more vulnerable to catastrophe. Localism is inevitable because we can no longer afford to maintain our complex society and it'll collapse. It's no longer a political discussion about 'isms', because 'local' will be the only game in town.

I for one will be pleased if 'Socialism' goes back to being society and 'Communism' goes back to being community.

Read that 3rd paragraph again: "In my view it was wealth which gave you the possibility of redistributive social programs..." 

And now, we have come to the end of that "wealth".  

ALL political movements come to an end long after their useful life ended, existing as vestigial accoutrements of the politics of the people that benefited (or thought they benefited) by their existence. Though we might argue over WHEN their usefulness expired, I don't think we need to argue that it DOES, in fact, expire.  If you accept this, then ALL of the political movements born in the post WWII era are either past, or coming to the end of, their useful lives in the Post Peak Oil era... Conservatism, Liberalism, Civil Rights, Feminism, Fundamentalism... will ALL yield to the new ism - whatever the nomenclature for that turns out to be (Localism, etc...).  If you doubt this just ask around for a "Muckraker" or "Know Nothing" political action committee.  

Mentatt (at) yahoo (dot) com