Sim-O

In a recent debate at Kings College on the future of capitalism, Martin Wolf, one of the main proponents of global capitalism, and principal economic spokesperson for the City, argued that we can not easily change the nature of global wealth inequality, as people in the developed world would not be prepared to give up what they already have. In a defence of capitalism, and in response to one of the questions from the floor, he challenged the audience as to whether they would all be prepared to give up half of everything they owned for redistribution to poorer countries.

http://www.youtube.com/user/adycousins#p/u/7/hYpHLnlUrFg

The argument that in order to achieve any kind of large structural change to the economy there must be a trade off against current standards of living is one that is very popular in capitalist circles, and often repeated, yet it hides the real structural factors that prevent any meaningful change. This type of argument is even used by those who see capitalism as merely a least worst system, but who cannot envisage any other way of challenging the status quo than ‘sharing’ the costs.

In the example of global poverty, we  (the general population) are asked to give up our current (modest) living standards to help others. However, this hides the real causes of global inequalities, such as  the production of goods based on profit rather than human need, the resources wasted on illegal and immoral wars and the reification of the financial sector over the productive sector.

Within developed countries like the US and UK, income inequality is already increasing, so the cuts are already happening to some extent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/08/tax-system-reform-weath-inequality

Although not everywhere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/21/executive-pay-bonuses-goldmansachs

The cuts that need to be made are not in the living standards of the population and public services (which compromise the social wage), but in the income of the wealthy, the bonuses of the bankers, nuclear weapons and war, and corporate profits. We need production to be realigned to meet human needs, and we need to stop pretending that gambling on stocks and shares contributes anything to society as a whole. We have the greatest productive capacity in the history of mankind, yet we are still unable to feed, clothe and shelter the world. We don’t need cuts in wages, jobs and production to help the capitalists cope with the financial crisis, we need them to accept cuts in their profits and their wages.

The same argument is seen with regards to climate change. We are told that we need to ‘reduce or energy consumption’, or pay higher prices if we don’t in order to cut global emissions.  We need to fly less, drive our cars less, use less power at home.

These mechanisms barely touch the tip of the iceberg, but are an ideological drip to prepare us for the higher prices and ‘trade-offs’ we will be forced to make in the future. Of course, when they say ‘we’ need to fly less , they don’t mean everyone. As fuel prices rise in the future, the poorest will suffer first.

But this trade-off, the acceptance that we must expect lower standards of living if we are to save the environment also hides the real structural factors that need to be tackled. Firstly, we need huge investment in green energy. We have the technology, but this would cut the profits of the current global energy companies, who will only invest in clean alternatives once they have squeezed every ounce of profit out of coal, gas and oil reserves.  As somebody once said, we need to make sure the shit doesn’t get into the pipe, not try and sieve it out once it has got into the water. We need to produce energy clean, not focus on just using less of it.

Secondly, we need cuts in the amount of SUV’s and oil guzzling over sized cars, in the number of cars in city centres, and of  government subsidies for car manufacturing industries. We need investment in public transport systems designed to fulfill the needs of the people, not the profits of the transport companies.  We need cuts in rail and bus fares,  not increases. We need to get rid of intellectual property rights and patents that prevent the spread and sharing of beneficial technology, and to renew commitments to global climate change agreements, and not worry if these cut into the profits of the minority.

We need cuts, but not the sort the City and Government have in mind!

This link, courtesy of Luna17, takes you to the billion-dollar-gram on the information is beautiful website, check it out:

informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/

Some highlights:

The OPEC climate change fund is only 0.06% of total OPEC earnings

The value  of the Internet Porn Industry is almost as large as the amount of foreign aid given by the World’s Major Nations

The US defence budget is nearly large enough to feed and educate every child on earth for 5 years

The amount of money that the UK government spent on bailing out the banks would have more than covered the entire debt owed by African Nations to the West…..

Part of me, unfortunately, is not very surprised at the sheer scale of waste and inequality.  What is clear is that the necessary resources exist for us to transform the world – we don’t need huge leaps in technology, or to rely on developing countries to grow their economies for the next 50 years  -we need permanent  Redistribution…

The Guardian has had a legal sock stuff in their mouth by those champions of justice Carter-Fuck on behalf of Trafigura…

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations

I am absolutely staggered that a court would give such an order.

Alex Massie in the Spectator reckons he knows what the question is and the gagging order is to try and suppress this report.

This gagging order may not go right to the heart of Parliamentary privilige, which alllows an MP to speak in the house without fear of being prosecution or legal action, but it punctures a lung of an open parliament.

It may be the case that groups and individuals may be barred from being named, granted anonymity, in the reporting of parliament for reasons of national security, but to have that applied purely for commercial reasons is disgusting.

An open, freely reported parliament is essential for a smoothly run and corruption-free (as far as possible) democracy.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

I also found this at Sweeney* Maddison, the judge that approved/passed/whatever-it’s-called the order needs his arse kicking about this, too.

Yesterday the Guardian revealed the sheer magnitude of the sums of money spent by Lobbyists on both sides in the great healthcare debate in the US:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

Lobbyists representing the commercial interests of those who are opposed to the introduction of public health insurance have spent a grand total of $380 million on advertising campaigns, lobbying and direct political contributions, whilst those supportive of the bill, such as the Pharmaceutical companies, have stumped up $150 million.

These methods of lobbying have been described as ‘morally suspect’, rather an understatement of the situation, and indeed cast yet another dark cloud over the mechanisms of democracy, and the brand of democracy that the US are attempting to export all over the world.

What this shows us, alongside yet another damnation of the current democratic system, is that the Capitalist system is so wasteful and incapable of satisfying even the most basic of human needs. Anne Kruger, a famous neoliberal and pro-capitalist academic, wrote about ‘rent seeking’ in the 1990’s, arguing that rent-seeking, defined as the quest for access to  ‘super profits’ (profits gained over and above the profits one would expect to receive in a perfectly competitive market), is wasteful to the economy, as Firms compete for these super profits at the expense of investment. Kruegers’ original model was used to criticise certain countries in the Developing world for the non-market policies that they implemented. Supporters of the efficiency of the market would yet again hold up this model, and argue that the public medical insurance scheme proposed by Obama is government intervention is anti-market, which in a sense it is. The $430 million spent by the Firms in competing for the super profits could have been used more productively if it were invested.

So far so good, Ms Krueger, you almost have us convinced that Obamas’ proposed reforms have actually contributed to a reduction in the efficiency of the market. If you are arguing that this sum could have been invested in the  public healthcare system, not made it’s way into the pockets of the already super -rich that inhabit Capital Hill, sorry, Capitol Hill, then that is very admirable of you.

However, this kind of argument is consistently used to hide that basic fact that the market is simply defunct as a system that can fulfill even the most basic of human needs.  Another finding of Kruegers’ model is that the amount that Firms are willing to spend on competing for the super profits will eventually equal the amount of super profits available to them. As the legislation has not been passed yet, and we do not know how much more will be spent, what we can say is that there is at least $380 million in super profits up for grabs.

We can also say that without the proposed legislation, these $380 million worth of profits implicitly coexist,  and rely on the fact that an estimated 46 million of the poorest Americans are excluded from the healthcare system as they are unable to afford either the private medical insurance or the fees.  To put it bluntly, the ‘efficient’ market outcome trades off $380 million in profits against the healthcare needs of the poorest 15% of the US population. This is what ‘efficiency’ means in real terms, and is characteristic of the market outcomes that we see all over the world. It is one of the starkest examples of how the capitalist system places profit above human need.

I was just thinking this morning about how much longer I would have to wait for a reply to this email to Ocado about their claim to be ‘as green as walking to the supermarket’ when early this afternoon a response plops into my inbox…

Dear Sim-O,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The claim that ?Ocado is greener than walking to the supermarket? was a conclusion that was reached by an independent Carbon Footprint Assessment agency called Greenstone and not by Ocado.

The centralised warehouse which every order is picked from means a small supply chain and massive energy/resource efficiency at every level of the business.

Greenstone compared our unique picking model to several well known supermarket chains. These chains emit huge amounts of carbon as they have countless stores around the country, all consuming electricity, using chillers etc. All of these stores have long supply chains from suppliers driving up and down the country. Building new stores generates high amounts of carbon, while Ocado can still grow within one Warehouse.

The most recent comparison in May 2009 of Ocado to ?traditional supermarkets? across the same detailed categories showed that we had a lower carbon footprint. This did not take into account the huge additional carbon footprint of traditional stores from customers traveling to them each week by car.

Hence it was concluded independently that Ocado is greener than walking to a supermarket

For more information on the survey itself, you can contact Greenstone in the following ways:

Greenstone Carbon Management Ltd,
4th Floor,
Vigo House,
1-4 Vigo Street,
London W1S 3HT.

T: +44 (0) 20 3031 4000
F: +44 (0) 20 3031 4001

E: info@greenstonecarbon.com

I hope this has been of assistance.

A customer service bod

Fair enough*. I’m not gonna try and see the survey for myself as, frankly, I can’t be arsed.

*I think I was a little unfair in this tweet as I read it quick and misread it.

Ocado, online grocery home delivery service, claim on their vans that they are ‘as green as walking to the supermarket’ and on their website has the statement…

With such a lean, efficient operation, we’ve been able to lower our carbon emissions to the point where each Ocado delivery now has a lower carbon footprint (CO2 per £ of sales) than walking to a supermarket.

I’m buggered if I think how driving a van can produce less CO2 than walking, especially as at the moment they are using biodiesel and not something like hydrogen fuel cells which produce only water (not counting all the CO2 produced in the ‘manufacture’ of the hydrogen). I wouldn’t have given it much thought if the claim had been nearly as little as walking, but less…?

So I sent them an email…

To: ocado@ocado.com
from: Sim-O
Subject: your CO2 output

Sri or Madam,

On your vans you claim…

We’re as green as walking to the supermarket

and your website also carries the statement…

With such a lean, efficient operation, we’ve been able to lower our carbon emissions to the point where each Ocado delivery now has a lower carbon footprint (CO2 per £ of sales) than walking to a supermarket.

Could you substantiate that claim, please. It is a big claim and it has to be true otherwise you would not be able to make it, but I am puzzled as to how.

What are you counting as producing CO2 in each type of journey? How far back through the delivery chain are you going? What, exactly, are you comparing for each type of journey?

What are the figures and the maths that enable you to make such a claim?

Kind Regards

I’m not trying make a point, get some info so I can point my finger and yell ‘Cpaitalist Charlatan Pigs!’, but genuinely puzzled. Just by the fact that the van has a driver puts the van on an equal footing with the pedestrian. Doesn’t it?

It’s 13th September today. How far off is Christmas?

Ooh, it’s only about three and half months away. Or 103 days to be a bit more precise.

Tesco in Abingdon think we should be starting to stock up already…

You probably all knew it anyway, but here is a fine example of the hypocrasy of capitalism [click to enlarge]

£5 for 15 cans of cider. 34 pence a can.
£5 for 18 bottles of lager. 28 pence a bottle.

A pack of 10 cans of Coke will cost, from Tesco, £3.65. 37 pence a can.

The drinkaware.co.uk website says about themselves…

Drinkaware aims to change the UK’s drinking habits for the better. We promote responsible drinking and find innovative ways to challenge the national drinking culture to help reduce alcohol misuse and minimise alcohol-related harm.

Wow. Now that really is innovative. Selling alcohol cheaper than non-alcohol. I see, minimize the impact of drinking on the wallet. Very good.

N.B.
It’s not the selling of cheap beer that’s irked me, it’s the hypocrasy of pretending to care, saying one thing and doing the opposite.

The London Eye (my emphasis)…

As you rise to an incredible 135 metres above the River Thames, the 30 minute rotation on the London Eye provides stunning panoramic views of the city and reveals parts of London which are simply not visible from the ground.

There’s not really a lot of London that is visible from the ground due to all the fucking big buildings. *shakes head*

British Airways are fucking with the people again…

The cash-strapped airline will… take control of another £330m in bank guarantees which had previously been set aside for its pensioners in the event of BA falling into insolvency. This comes just three days after BA warned it might not have enough liquidity to survive the economic downturn.

So BA may go to the wall, and to try and stop it, with no guarantees that it will, they have raided the very pot of money that their ex-workers will need if things do turn to poo.

Maybe BA should concentrate on turning a profit rather than trying to maintain their “position as a leading global premium airline”. It’s no good being a premium airline if you ain’t making money.