Ron Paul stands for a lot of things that I think are nutty, like his untried libertarian utopian ideas. Under normal circumstances, I would never consider urging my American neighbours to vote for a libertarian.

These are not normal circumstances.

The US has reached a point of political-economic crisis – you cannot separate the two – and as a result the responses are limited and non-ideal. In a crisis you must take decisive action or events may overwhelm you – they may anyway, as a crisis is by definition somewhere between bordering on chaos and all-out anarchy.

At this point, the urgent need is to neutralize the power of corporations and the rich over the US government or nothing else will matter. Yes, climate change, peak oil, the current depression, and so on are all serious crises. The sad fact is that they all exist to the extent they do largely because of corruption in the United States government.

Until this corruption is rooted out, there is little chance of serious action on climate, on oil dependency, or of the US and world economy recovering. If you disagree with me, please show me what President Obama has done that will make a real difference with these crises.

You can trade an Obama for a Romney/Gingrich/whoever and things will get worse faster, but either way the crises we face will not be addressed.

Ron Paul has some scary ideas and libertarianism is untried utopian lunacy, but because of the extent of the corruption in the US government, he’s the only candidate who has a chance of stopping the American slide – and they’re going to drag a lot of us with them – into a police-state plutarchy.

I don’t say this lightly; electing Ron Paul is potentially a dangerous step but far less dangerous than hoping for change from Obama or any of the other Republican candidates. Ron Paul is anti-empire, anti-police-state, and pro-Constitution, which Americans desperately need to remember matters before it’s too late.

Many people are upset about the mess and disruption caused by the Occupy protesters. Some counter by saying that the preservation of freedom and democracy is often messy and disruptive, and this is true enough.

The more immediate point is that the OWS protesters are saying the same thing, albeit less coherently, as many prominent economists and most religious leaders: Greed is a vice, not a virtue. We cannot build a stable, secure, prosperous economy or society on a foundation of greed and corruption. The longer we ignore this fact, the longer the recession will drag on, all-the-while the banksters and their cronies collect fat bonuses.

While the OWS protesters may be driven out, the problem remains: Our economy and even our society’s morality at the upper levels is founded on the vice of greed. (I speak primarily of the US economy; other countries have not elevated greed to such a high level and are thus more stable.)

Greed is not good. Taking greed as a primary virtue, as the ideology of libertarianism (think Ayn Rand) and the elites of the United States have done, means bad things will happen, and unfortunately not just to the greedy. If greed is a virtue, then selflessness clearly can not be, as it is in direct conflict. To be greedy means to be selfish, and greed knows no bounds; there is no ‘enough’ for a greedy man.

The greedy don’t want to contribute to society, they want to line their own pockets. They don’t necessarily want to steal from you and me for themselves, but ultimately they must to feed their greed. Greed, like all vices, is addictive; there is no satiation point, no enough. Like any addict, when the easy fix runs out, they must take from whoever and wherever they can.

Picture the heroin addict: perhaps at first he can support his habit from his income, but soon the need for a fix destroys his ability to work and he must rely on theft to feed his addiction. Late-stage addicts will lie to and steal from anyone – friends, family, gullible good Samaritans.

There is not much difference in this way between a drug addict and a money addict. Bernie Madoff ripped off those close to him even though he already had billions. Greedy bankers will – just about did – destroy the economy for their fix, even though many were fantastically rich already.

So while you may mock the OWS protesters, remember this: An economy built on greed will collapse, probably viciously. And while many of the greedy will escape with their billions to safer places, you and I will be stuck here in the smoking ruins of a once vibrant economy. If the Occupy Wall Street does not accomplish its goal of rooting out greed, our future is bleak indeed.

Lots of folks slamming the Greeks for being self-entitled, lazy, and so on for rioting over ‘austerity’ plans for their country. True, their country owes a mountain of debt. But why are the citizens of Greece paying the price for this while the banks are being bailed out (again)? Don’t banks have a responsibility to ascertain the ability of a borrower to repay? And if those banks make bad investments…why are others paying for it?

The usual argument is fear of economic collapse if the banks are allowed to fail, but that seems backwards. Rewarding incompetent or foolish investors harms the market. And how much truth is there to the bank failure fearmongering, anyway?

Look at it this way:

Imagine all the banks that loaned money to Greece are allowed to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and some even go bankrupt:

• The average Greek will still owe, and be expected to pay, his or her mortgage, credit card debts, car loans, etc.
• The average Greek small and large businesses will still owe, and be expected to pay, their various loans, accounts payable, etc.

Goldman Sachs, which orchestrated a financial sleight of hand that enabled Greece to hide its extravagant ways.

Also aiding Greece’s debt habit were some of Europe’s biggest banks. By 2004 it was widely known that Greece had cooked its books and that its financial condition was not nearly as sound as advertised. Still, major banks like France’s giant BNP Paribas and Germany’s Commerzbank bought billions worth of the ill-fated bonds.

In other words, Europe’s big banks and pension funds bought Greek debt, ignoring the risks, because it was profitable.

I make no claim to be an economic wizard…but then again, given how poorly most mainstream economists are doing, could I be much worse? That post was from 2009 and things have not improved. Seemingly obvious things are seemingly obscure to the average economics Ph.D. – in fact, one might say they are being wilfully blind.

There are three (3) blindingly obvious, common sense reasons why the U.S. would be very foolish to allow corporations to repatriate profits at a bargain basement tax rate. At least, they seem quite obvious to me, but if someone more knowledgeable than I would correct me, I’m all ears (and a fair bit of forehead these days, too).

[The idea is that U.S. corporations could bring home foreign profits and pay 8.5% - or less - versus the 35% they would normally pay.]

1. Last time, they just spent it on themselves. That is, the last time this was tried, corporations used the money to buy back their own shares and reward their CEOs with fat bonuses. There are lots of (extremely rich) people claiming “This time will be different, really,” but…fool me once and all that.
2. Corporations already have very large cash reserves and are not spending. And why would they, if there’s no demand for their product? Give them more, and why would they spend that?
3. It creates a perverse incentive to outsource jobs, because the tax rate on foreign profits would be so much lower than on U.S. profits. Allowing these corporations to ‘bring home’ the profits merely encourages them to send more jobs overseas.

The US ‘debt ceiling deal’ simply reinforces that, for sensible people, Obama is definitely not ‘the guy’ we hoped he would be. And never was. Way back when first elected, he appointed Steven Chu as his Energy Secretary, and one of the first things Chu said was that California was running out of water and agriculture there couldn’t last much longer – and the cities were in big trouble, too. He was muzzled after that. That was an ominous sign that Obama was not much more tolerant of truth than Bush II.

Since then, of course, Obama has greatly expanded the unconstitutional presidential powers that Bush II had no right taking in the first place, and it’s been one cave-in after another. In fact, it seems clear to me that Obama is not so much caving in to the radical right but seems…fine with much of what they propose. How else to describe all his pre-emptive capitulations?

Obama started with health care, which was a huge and, to me anyway, obvious blunder. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, after the Clintons failed with their health care initiative, Obama goes with health care instead of jobs. The ultimate bill ended up being virtually identical to one proposed by Republicans some years earlier.

He should have started with jobs and cleaning up Wall Street and lobbying in general, but instead appointed half of Goldman Sachs as his financial advisors. It’s no surprise the US in in big fiscal shit now; he didn’t plunge the toilet first. He should have started with energy independence, which would have put people back to work and spent taxpayer dollars on green energy projects that reduced US dependence on foreign oil.

Definitely things are coming to a head. This latest US debt ceiling deal just punts the problem down the road a few months. I think we’re going to see a realignment of world power as companies and countries try to decouple themselves from the US, which is now more clearly than ever headed toward fiscal disaster. It probably won’t be immediate, and a lot of countries are much more heavily tied to the US than they would like to be, but you can see it coming when the ratings agencies are seriously threatening to downgrade the US credit rating. There must be enormous pressure on them NOT to do so, but they’re talking openly about it as if the US were Greece. And it has actually been happening, as companies relocate head offices and assets overseas, as are the rich.

The crises are coming so thick and fast that there is no time to deal with one before the next hits, from the Murdoch scandals to the US debt issue, from climate change to  oil depletion, from middle eastern uprisings to continuing recession in the US. The problems are systemic, and I can’t see a change until people in the developed countries take serious action against the powers-that-be. The super-rich have forgotten, don’t realise, or most likely don’t care that the middle class is the foundation of a stable society. At some point, enough Americans will be reduced to poverty with no hope of returning to the middle class, and when people lose hope, leaders lose their heads.

There are two options open to clean up the ‘leader of the free world’: nonviolent protest on the scale of the Civil Rights movement, or…. The super-rich are doing everything they can to destroy any possibility of nonviolent systemic change; they have corrupted the political process through lobbying, they have corrupted the media via Fox News, they have corrupted the public discourse via libertarian/extremist right-wing ‘think tanks’ like the Heritage Foundation and and other lying trash, and they have worked very hard to ensure that alternate loci of power – like unions – are destroyed. No matter what you think of unions, point me to a country with a high standard of living that does not also have a high degree of unionisation – they are few. Especially in the absence of a strong and honest government, unions are a necessary counterbalance to global corporations.

No conspiracy theory is required, although quite obviously scum like the Koch brothers and Murdoch are doing their best to control things. All it requires is many people voting or otherwise putting their short-term self-interest before that of everyone else and you get where the US is now.

I see no possibility of change until a serious crisis comes, and unfortunately that means much worse than the current recession. And when crisis hits and the old ways of organization are questioned and assaulted, the leaders who rise up will determine whether we end up with a better democracy, a more stable society, and a sustainable way of living – or whether things get exponentially worse.

We are nearing a tipping point, I believe, but it is impossible to predict what will be the trigger. It may seem to be something minor, but that’s only because we studiously ignored all the straw previously piled on the camel’s back.

The world oil supply is running down and we have no ready substitutes.

Climate change is happening now – stronger storms, more devastating wildfires, rising sea levels, diseases spreading – the list goes on, and there is every indication that it will continue to worsen.

The US economy, upon which the world economy still depends, is unstable due to corruption at the top, from most Congressmen to presidential advisors all being former bank executives.

Our leaders are not moving quickly enough to protect the economy in general, never mind your or my livelihoods in particular. Some of our leaders are actually doing things to worsen the situation, such as denying the very existence of climate change or ignoring the ever-rising price of oil.

We are facing “interesting times.” The turbulence has begun, and it’s buffeting us from all directions. Have you ever had the experience of going for a walk and, no matter which direction you were going, the wind always seemed to be in your face? That’s what the future is going to feel like for many people.

I could (and have) proposed large-scale responses to the situation, which frankly at this point need to be a WWII-scale mobilization to re-industrialize and re-do our living arrangements to drastically cut oil dependence immediately and, long-term, eliminate pollution of all kinds by moving to a ‘restorative economy.’

But we’re not going to do that in the foreseeable future, are we? Or anything even remotely close. If you take your family’s security seriously, then you will do what you can to buffer yourself against the coming storms. The best way I have seen to do that is Transition Initiative, and you should seriously consider joining (or starting) one in your area.

TI is a completely grassroots, apolitical initiative, and this is what they do:

Transition Network helps communities deal with climate change and shrinking supplies of cheap energy (peak oil). This process, which we call Transition, aims to create stronger, happier communities.

That’s how we’re going to get through this; by working together in local communities. As the Transition Network site puts it well:

What we are convinced of is this:

• • if we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late
  • if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little
  • but if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time.

Your level of involvement can be minimal or massive; the choice is yours. Here are some things that local TIs do:

• Teach people how to grow a garden, save seeds, preserve foods
• Educate people by showing documentaries about peak oil, climate change, solutions, and more
• Host online and IRL forums to discuss and learn
• Show people how to insulate their homes or build a solar greenhouse

Like it or not, the world is changing. You can adapt, or not.

There has been much debate whether the United States is in for inflation or deflation. It seems that it’s going to be – it is now – both.

Some things will deflate in price, while others will increase. This sounds obvious, and an average of certain of these items is used to determine an overall inflation, or possibly deflation, rate. However, certain rather important items are left out of the calculation by the government today, including housing and fuel.

In reality, the price of housing is deflating, while at the same time the price of fuel is inflating. If these were included in the calculation and balanced each other out, the inflation rate would show no inflation or deflation, and so all seems well.

In reality, this is very wrong. If house prices keep deflating – and why wouldn’t they? – then more and more people are going to be underwater in their mortgages. Equity for every homeowner and property owner has been evaporating by the trillions, and it’s not coming back.

Wages are also deflating. When the unemployment rate is as high as it is, then barring unions or other restrictions, employers are going to replace higher-paid workers with lower. Some are actively firing and replacing, while others are simply taking advantage of the job market to pay less when hiring.

Food prices and transportation costs are increasing. Some of this is due to the ‘high’ price of oil, which is currently ~$90 per barrel, more than four times it’s historical level and a prime reason the U.S. economy is still in recession.

So we have two key items deflating and two other key items inflating. Do they balance each other out? Maybe on paper.

Well. Time to eat some crow.

A couple of weeks ago I slagged Lana (and fellow NDP MLA John Horgan) for standing in the way of what we really need, which is rapid and decisive action on climate change and peak oil. Their party will, in fact, contribute to both climate change and our dependence upon oil by continuing to subsidize it.

That said, it is pointless, unfair, and ungentlemanly to harshly criticize well-meaning people who are trying to do their best in our broken system. Lana and John, both of whom I know personally though not well, are good people. I don’t agree with everything they do; I think subsidizing oil and gas is shortsighted and foolish.

But.

And it’s a very large but.

Our political system is broken. I have written as much elsewhere, and will do so again in my forthcoming book, The Way Home. (Tentatively subtitled: You Can’t Get There from Here, or, what you should be doing to protect yourself and your family against the coming economic, environmental, and social collapse. Cheery, no?)

I wish she would follow-through on some very important promises; at one point, she had asked Guy Dauncey and me to serve on an advisory group to help her with environmental issues. That never happened, and we could have been of some help. As an almost trivial example, Lana was “named “runner up” as Community Leader in the annual CFAX awards for her campaign to replace disposable plastic bags with reusable ones.” (Almost amusing, considering CFAX leans heavily toward climate change denial.) Had I been advising her, I would have suggested that instead all bags should be compostable. What’s the point in replacing disposable bags with ones that last longer but still ultimately end up in the landfill? That still sounds like disposable to me.

Had I been offering suggestions, I would have suggested that someone in the government go talk to companies that make compostable products and ask them if they would locate a plant in BC if a law were passed requiring all ‘disposable’ bags to be compostable. I bet they would. It’s a guaranteed market.

I digress.

The point is, why am I being so hard on a well-meaning person who is doing her best within a broken system? Lana understands the danger of climate change. She is, I have no doubt, working hard within our system, which includes that of her party, to do the right thing.

It is unlikely to be enough. Ideally, all the well-meaning people who ‘get it’ would go on ‘strike, a la Atlas Shrugged.* If only all the Lana Pophams and John Horgans (and Brian Gordons) would go on strike, would refuse to serve a corrupt political system, surely the masses would be forced to confront reality, would rebel against the self-serving crooks who largely populate our political landscape, and finally start selecting people of wisdom over those of substance….

It is an idle and ridiculous dream at this point, and as someone committed to embracing reality, I must apologize to Ms. Popham (and Mr. Horgan). If Lana stepped aside, someone would rush to fill her place, likely someone much less worthy. I would infinitely rather have Lana as my MLA than that person.

I accused Lana of being an obstacle to the change that is necessary. That was unfair. In an ideal world, she would be. But we don’t live in an ideal world. All the wise people who ‘get it’ are not going to go on strike and force a confrontation with reality. We can’t even get it together enough to speak with one voice, never mind actually act in concert for the good of humanity and the planet.

So, all this said, I am glad that Lana is my MLA, and I apologize to her, publicly, for my harsh words.  Do I think her party, if elected, will do what is necessary to at least mitigate some of the coming damage due to climate change and peak oil? Sadly, no. But Lana is doing her best within a broken system, and I can hardly ask for more.

—————————

* For those who have not plodded through Ayn Rand’s opus, the premise is that those who actually do positive things go on strike. In Rand’s view, these people are people like steel and railroad magnates.

Those of you who follow me know that I have recently ceased making posts urging large-scale reform. The reasons for that are fairly simple, but they involve a psychological hurdle to get over.

I have been communicating with James Howard Kunstler, John Michael Greer, and David Holmgren, all of whom I have interviewed, about a Wise Action Plan. The goal was for us to agree on this Plan and then publicly pronounce it in an effort to get some sensible action on peak oil and climate change. Initially, I urged a response that included a revitalization of rail, large-scale wind or solar farms, and other actions that require the federal government to take a strong leadership role.

While the others generally agreed such actions would be a good idea, especially if they have been started 20 or more years ago, two of the three thought they were a waste of time. They had two reasons for this:

1. It’s too late. We needed to be getting off oil while we still had a surplus. Now that we’ve hit peak oil, diverting any oil to build solar panels means there is less for cars or crops.
2. They ain’t gonna. What politician is going to do that, barring an emergency situation? (Emergency is here defined as rioting, fuel rationing, or other severe measures.)

To be fair to our politicians, it’s hard to get elected telling people their lifestyle is going to change drastically, including many of them giving up their cars. The problem is partly cultural; we want what we want, and we’re going to keep electing politicians who give it to us until that is no longer possible.

And to be brutally honest, most of us have bought into the idea of unending growth and improvement, that the market will find solutions to concerns like oil depletion, and that if it were really that bad, somebody would do something.

At that point, we will be well into the emergency.

It has been difficult for me to give up on the idea of leadership from above. I ran federally as a Green Party of Canada candidate last go-round, but wouldn’t do it again. Even in the fantastic unlikelihood that the Greens got a majority next election, they could not do what needs to be done. Still too many people will resist change, and this resistance will be encouraged and financed – by vested interests.

Think Globally, Act Locally

As a result, I’ve gone local. Leadership is going to have to come from the grassroots, from us, from those who understand the reality and are willing to take some action. I believe that every village, town, city, and region should create a Transition Initiative to get off oil.

This is acting locally, and it is vitally important for your survival. Local resilience is ‘in,’ and for good reason. When oil prices go up, imports of everything – including food – are going to get more expensive and harder to get. If you’re already shopping at the farmer’s market, for example, you have helped support a local farmer who will now support you as options in the supermarkets get scarcer and pricier.

This is my new Wise Action Plan:

1. Start or join a Transition Initiative in your area.
2. Reskill.
3. Develop personal self-reliance, which includes everything from starting a garden to insulating your house.

If we’re lucky and good, these local movements will take off, multiply like viruses, and infect the planet. These local movements will bond together and require their governments to do the right thing – to protect us. They will do this not by lobbying or influence-peddling, but by sheer strength of numbers.

I’m reading Joseph Stiglitz’ Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy, and he has mentioned several times that the most recent banking crisis was far from the first. In fact, it seems bankers have a history of creating financial disasters; I am old enough to remember the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis, caused by crooked bankers and enabled by crooked politicians, and Stiglitz mentions that there have been many such crises around the world.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that bankers routinely cause financial crises. While Stiglitz cites reality to back up the need for strict oversight of bankers, basic common sense should yield the same conclusion, for two reasons:

• Bankers deal with money – a lot of it. That is going to attract greedy and unethical people.
• Bankers make their money using other people’s money.

Given the immediate and enormous impact money has on our lives, large sums of money will act like a magnet for greedy people, especially those who want something for nothing. And what better way to get something for nothing than by gambling with other people’s money, where you get a huge profit if you win and there is no negative consequence if you lose? The only way to do better than that is outright theft, a la Berbie Madoff, but so far there are still consequences in that field.

The two reasons previously mentioned mean there is a great deal of moral hazard in the banking industry, and while many bankers will be responsible and trustworthy (with sufficient oversight), it only takes a few to thoroughly corrupt the whole system. Those few, of course, will make the most money and therefore will have the resources to buy politicians to remove barriers to making even more money – and more risk. As it becomes easier and easier to get rich quick in the banking industry, more and more unscrupulous people will drive out responsible bankers and sensible laws…until the result is a crisis.

By that point, of course, they have bought enough influence to ensure a bailout for themselves and no oversight that might cramp their style going forward.

This is why banking is best when boring.