Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom. Not Again!

My Favorite Kicking Boy Asks For It Again!

What is now a long time ago I used to marvel at New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's observational skills. He seemed to pick up important new shifts and trends before most of the other pundits realized anything was happening. But over the years he has consistently failed to properly interpret his observations because he lets his ideology (or is it now a religious belief for him) blind him to the deeper realities, either of causes or coming effects. His observations re: globalization were spot on in terms of what then was starting to rev up. Similarly, in more recent years he has recognized that the world if 'flat, hot, and crowded'. He has not shied away from bringing attention to global warming or population pressures. He has even noted the energy problem and correctly stated that the energy problem is related to the global warming problem. But for him the issue has always been energy security. More recently he has promoted green technology, what he calls energy technology or ET as being the new engine of prosperity.

I'm not saying Tom was among the earliest observers to note these and warn us about them. Far from it. But as a significant (famous) pundit working for a world leading newspaper, the New York Times, he was in front of his peers, often enough to warrant praise for his efforts.

But then he has to go and spoil it by drawing completely erroneous conclusions. Take for example his column today in the Sunday Times (The Fat Lady Has Sung). After correctly noting that the economy has entered "lean years" and lamenting the foibles that led us here (both by G.W. Bush & co, and Obama & friends), he then concludes that we are in the mess we are because of the loss of 'greatness' by our leaders.

Yes, sir, we've just had our 70 fat years in America, thanks to the Greatest Generation and the bounty of freedom and prosperity they built for us. And in these past 70 years, leadership — whether of the country, a university, a company, a state, a charity, or a township — has largely been about giving things away, building things from scratch, lowering taxes or making grants.

He then points out that things have changed. Leaders now are compelled to take things away. He correctly identifies the problem we face as one of retrenchment. Good so far.

Then out of the blue this:

Let’s just hope our lean years will only number seven. That will depend a lot on us and whether we rise to the economic challenges of this moment. Our parents truly were the Greatest Generation. We, alas, in too many ways, have been what the writer Kurt Andersen called "The Grasshopper Generation," eating through the prosperity that was bequeathed us like hungry locusts. Now we and our kids together need to be "The Regeneration" — the generation that renews, refreshes, re-energizes and rebuilds America for the 21st century.

Emphasis added.

What I get out of this is that Tom continues to think that the right spirit, entrepreneurism, free market capitalism, energy technology (his ET), and the American way can somehow do all of those things. All it takes is the right leadership. Now I could be mistaken. His missive seems aimed more at prodding Obama to 'do the right thing'. At the very end he says, "It comes back to us: We have to demand the truth from our politicians and be ready to accept it ourselves." But what truth is he referring to?

When will Tom Friedman and many of the other great observer/pundits finally figure out the truth for themselves, and then tell us what it is? The truth is that no 'spirit' is going to change the lean years into fat years again. The problem isn't lack of spirit, it is lack of energy. And by energy I mean physical energy, not moral. Obama can no more change the laws of physics than he can change the Republicans' minds. The simple fact is that we are in lean years because some years back the cost of getting new energy, mostly in the form of oil, started going up dramatically. The marginal return on energy investment started to decline and eventually, net energy returned translates into real wealth creation. Lower the net energy and you lower wealth production. It really is that simple. Moreover, lower wealth production translates eventually into higher costs and fewer jobs. This isn't rocket science, though it is physics.

When real wealth production started to fail to increase year after year the financial world turned to making it easy for everyone to bet on the future by borrowing and playing the stock market like a casino. They needed to borrow time, they thought, until things somehow magically turned around. Little did they know that there was a fundamental physical reason why the American economy, as well as most OECD nations' economies, were going lean. They assumed things would turn around and in the mean time they would coax more cash out of the completely unsuspecting middle class with all kinds of gimmicks. One way or another, and with the collusion of government accounting they were trapped into creating the illusion of growth (and seeming prosperity) by making the GDP numbers inflate.

What has happened is simple. The Ponzi scheme that has been market finance has finally come to an end, though the financial folk pretend it hasn't and are still robbing the rest of us blind. We've come to that point when the pyramid can no longer be supported by a new round of foolishness. What used to be based on honest wealth production fueled by increasing energy flows is now supported by wishes.

It was the increasing flow of cheap (high energy return on energy investment) petroleum (esp. oil) that allowed our WWII generation to achieve the greatness that Tom so admires. They did it because it was possible, not because it was a particularly good idea to pell mell burn through that stored wealth of energy as fast as they (and we) could. Indeed we now realize that we were screwing up the environment by doing so. We were killing off species by destroying habitat in our zeal for more wealth and growth. Too many results of our wonderful technologies have ended up contributing to damaging our health and well being in the long run. Do you know what strange chemicals they are finding in our bodies? We and our parents were fools in this way.

So, Tom, tell me. When will you wake up to the real reality and understand what is really feasible in this physically constrained (not psychically constrained) world of ours? When will you get that neither Obama nor any other politician is able to deal with the real 'truth'? The reason I ask, and continue to read your column for hints that maybe at last you are getting it, is that what you write is taken to heart by millions of people world-wide. If you started telling the truth maybe both the people and the politicians would start to wake up. Of course the NYT might not like it since they live on advertising and it probably wouldn't be good to go against the grain on this, decidedly, anti-capitalistic reality. But for a little while you could stand tall and make a difference.

Comments

[smiths]

is it at all possible that tom gets inside info regarding upcoming trends and is effectively employed to shape the way these trends will be viewed ...
CFR anyone

[Jason]

I can only agree. Without wishing to sound at all silly, would there be anything wrong with sending this post as a letter to the NYTimes?

[Robin Datta]

Pardon the cynicism, but maybe the shrewd are positioning themselves for the best chance of getting through the bottleneck without stampeding the herd.

[chris]

Meh, he's just another hypocrite unless he's moved.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green

At least into the pool house ;-)

[George Mobus]

Smiths,

Anything is possible.

Jason,

Don't know how silly it is. I've tried posting comments on both Friedman's and Krugman's blogs with seeming little success. I see criticisms posted there so I don't know what the problem is. I get stuff published in the Dot Earth blog, which uses the same format/software. The restrictions on word counts in letters to the editor probably preclude this getting published.

Robin,

Cynicism pardoned! You could be right, and there probably are some 'shrewdies' doing so. But I know a fair number of so-called shrewd folk who haven't got a clue. We'll see.

George

[Joe McCarthy]

Doug Rushkoff, author of "Life, Incorporated: How the World Became a Corporation and How We Can Take It Back", might argue that the problem is not capitalism, per se, but corporatism.

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/

The NYTimes is more beholden to corporatists than capitalists (for advertising), so I don't think this dilutes your argument about potential conflict of interest.

Doug argues that for-profit corporations were originally set up to extract resources and transfer wealth from local communities to external shareholders with no intrinsic interest in the welfare of the people and places who were (and are) being exploited.

The energy industry offers an exemplar of this practice. Although he doesn't delve deeply into energy-related issues, he does address what I might call the Agriculture-Energy-Industrial complex (on pages 211-212).

[Mark Twain]

You have a much higher opinion of Friedman than I do, Mr. Mobus.

I stopped taking him seriously after the third or fourth time he proclaimed that (paraphrased) "the next 6 months is a critical period for the Iraq War" (now referred to as a "Friedman Unit"), and his endless cheerleading for war (the "Suck On This" interview with Charlie Rose is a good example).

IMHO, he has no interest in the truth or doing the right thing.

Mark Twain wrote something about your lament regarding Mr. Friedman (and many others):

"My Dear Sir:

But you are proceeding upon the superstition that Moral Courage and a Hankering to Learn the Truth are ingredients in the human being's makeup. Your premises being wild and foolish, you naturally and properly get wild and foolish results. If you will now reform, and in future proceed upon the sane and unchallengeable hypothesis that those two ingredients are on vacation in our race, and have been from the start, you will be able to account for some things which seem to puzzle you now.

Sincerely yours,

S. L. CLEMENS.
Riverdale-on-the-Hudson, Dec. 21, 1901."

[George Mobus]

Joe,

I have written about the origins of capitalism and it's "pure" form. Capitalism as practiced today is joined at the hip with corporatism. So, yes, the arguments stand but with that nuance.

Mark,

I really don't have a very high regard for Mr. Friedman. I pay attention to what he is saying because there are too many people in influential places that do had such regard for him. That is why I called him my favorite kicking boy.

Mr. Clemens, as always, has a keen sense of perspective on human nature. In other writings, I have pointed out that most of our species foibles originate in insufficient development of sapience and consequent lack of wisdom.

George