Jim Kunstler tells a story about being told a story:
An acquaintance told me a weird story yesterday. Let's call him "E." He runs an Internet consulting company here in Saratoga Springs. It employs about twenty-five people in a downtown building E put up a few years ago.Meanwhile, over at Balloon Juice, Tim revisits Jared Diamond’s latest.
Last month a freak windstorm ripped through here and took down the electric power for three days. E lost communication with the payroll service (a separate company) that issues his employee's salaries. The storm happened in the middle of the day, Friday, payday.
The power came back on Sunday night, and on Monday two of E's employees each asked for private meetings with the boss. Because of the storm, they said, the payroll company had failed to make electronic salary deposits in their checking accounts. They were concerned because they were late on their mortgage payments and without the past week's electronic paycheck, they couldn't pay their mortgages.
E told me that these were "high-level employees" with substantial salaries who were both living in "very high-end homes," which around here would mean around a half-million dollars (and I know that in some parts of the US, like Washington, DC, or San Francisco, a half-million barely gets you a "pre-owned" raised ranch). He said he was shocked to discover that his executives were living from paycheck to paycheck, in houses that by normal criteria (i.e. pre-bubble standards) they probably couldn't afford.
I first encountered Kunstler while suffering from a near-post-adolescent infatuation with The New Urbanism. I’ve recovered somewhat; I’m far too big an aesthete and fan of great modern and contemporary architecture to buy into the stylistic atavism that always seems to accompany New Urbanists. Is it possible to combine sustainable, mixed-use, community-fostering planning with innovative design? Yes. The Spanish certainly seem good at it, if recent history is any indication. (The US . . . not so much. Look at the godawful mess in lower Manhattan, where the only thing that anyone seems able to agree on is that whatever gets built will be shitty, but at least there’ll be a shopping mall.)
But the obsessions of New Urbanism are still near to my heart. I’m a proponent of urban living and, to the extent possible, a proponent of regional agricultures. That’s partly because I’m a fag (urban) and a foodie (the other thing). It’s partly because I believe communitarian values necessary to civil society are best fostered by relatively high population densities, whereas good land-use policies are best fostered by giving actual farmers and ranchers vested interests in long-term methods of sustainable agriculture. I’m speaking in generalities here, but you get the picture.
Anyway, the intersection between Kunstler’s tale and Jared Diamond’s Necromonicon of Most Disapperèd Civilizations occurs way out in the David Brooksian exurbs, where despite a few recent news pieces on shrinking houses, Americans go on building farther and bigger, not entirely unlike the Easter Islanders, who, Diamond explains, competed to erect the biggest monuments until, in pursuit of that preposterous end, they chopped down every goddamn tree on their island. Then they all died.
Ours is a more complex society, of course, and larger. If our collapse comes (there are days I suspect it’s already here), it will occur all around us and in slow motion—over the course of decades and perhaps centuries. It will come as a result of the bizarrely concurrent extenuation and super-sizing of the physical America, in which the bonds that tie us together as a polity are worn ever-thinner by our sheer distance from one another, even as distance and size necessitate endless increases in our rapacity for resources and fuels. I don’t mean to sound Malthusian, and I recognize that technological innovation has in the past mitigated what seemed like coming environmental or demographic doom. But let’s be frank: technological progress is neither infinite nor assured, and our rate of consumption clearly outpaces our rate of invention at present.
Meanwhile, Kevin Phillips recently appeared with Lou Dobbs and made a very interesting, very scary comparison:
[I]f you look at two previous leading world economic powers, Britain, 100 years ago, and the Dutch after New Amsterdam […] In each case what happened was an erosion of actually making things, as the society shifted towards trading things and moving money around and all of that sort of stuff.So David Brooks et al. ("an elite that is then a vested set of interests?") can happy-talk all they want about how exurban McMansionism is the first true re-expansion of the American identity since Frederick Jackson Turner pronounced the frontier closed, and E.’s execs can keep living mortgage-payment to mortgage-payment in those McMansions, and George W. Bush can pronounce at a press conference that Americans’ household net worth is now higher than it has ever been (largely based, one presumes, on part-ownership of those very soon-to-be-un-salable McMansions).
Once you start to make that transition, there doesn't seem to be any way to go back because you create an elite that is then a set of vested interest[s] in the new way of doing things. And they don't much care whether or not they're still making steel in Sheffield, or in Pittsburgh.
Frankly, I don’t like the odds . . . or the resemblances.

6 comments:
I don't think Philips's historical analogy is well-stated. True, the political decline of the Dutch and English can be described in terms of their industrial productivity. But while these things are complex to unravel, it probably wasn't a causal relationship. Much of the Dutch industry for example surrounded sugar production, which was ruined when their supply of cheap cane from colonies in the East and West Indies was hindered by fighting in Java and competititon from Jamaica and Hispaniola.
It is true that a lot of Dutch-manufactured consumer goods (glass, pottery, etc) depended on processes that they had improved from Venetian craft manufactures (which had in turn improved on manufacturing technology in Muslim principalities, then Christian Catalonia etc). Eighteenth century English travelers were fond of remarking how far the Venetian glass works on the Island of Murrano had fallen, how unfashionable and so on their vases were. There is no question that the French, Dutch and English were making things cheaper. But a lot of it turned simply on different in style preference among consumers, and that in turn was a function of who had the most disposable income to spend. So we're back to the power politics of empire again.
Just to be clear, what I'm suggesting above is that, pace Phillips, *making things* (e.g. refined sugar) and *trading things* (e.g. sugar cane) are inseperable. Both of them depend on imperial reach to supply the necessary ingredients, and the revenues from both of them allow local consumers to establish prevailing tastes. He is clearly right about America declining, but to say the solution is more production is like saying that the cure for a fever is a lower body temperature.
I agree with most of what you write, but I think you've misinterpreted Phillips' point because his interview comment was a little vague--the "trading things" comment in particular.
I don't think Kevin Phillips does (or should) have a particular problem with trading materials, goods, and real commodities produced by extranational or transnational entities. As you note, it is and was the way of the interconnected world, and the way of any large economy.
I think that Phillips was inartfully pointing to the rise of financialism, of self-generating money. I think he's pointing to economies that turned away from generating wealth on the basis of the production, distribution, sale, and resale of real goods and services and turned instead to the shuffling of ledger columns in order to generate paper profits.
I could be wrong, and Phillips could be naively making the point that you discredit. (His presence on Dobbs probably lends credence to that hypothesis.) But I've found him pretty astute in other commentary, and so I'm giving the benefit of a doubt.
Okay, so (in our simulacrum of Phillips) it's really about trading things versus trading "things." He's objecting to the rise of financial markets -- or more charitably I guess, the tendency as market capitalist societies degenrate/lose power for stock markets to be a larger and larger percentage of the total economic function.
If so, then England and the Netherlands would be two good examples if it weren't for the fact that by the time Holland had a serious stock market as we'd understand it it was already in serious decline, while England's imperial rule lasted long after its status as a manufacturing power was a thing of the past.
I guess what I'm saying in essence is, first, "decline" theories are self fulfilling. Ultimately things do run down. It's like Gibbon saying that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. Sure, buddy, after 1100 years! Second, even if this diagnosis is correct, who cares? Maybe America is on the decline, but Phillips would seem to imply that market capitalism as a phenomenon will pick up the slack elsewhere. This just means we've reached the end of our lifespan as a power.
If you're objecting to this facet of market capitalism (the tendency for markets in "things" to take a greater and greater share of a given economy as time goes on) because it interferes with our national greatness, I think you'll find the world generally unsympathetic. We built this city on rock and roll, as a wise man once said. If you're objecting to market capitalism per se, then Kevin Phillips is probably not the best authority to appeal to.
If by contrast you're just generally grousing about how shitty things are these days down on the ranch, I invite you to down a couple bottles of Tussin with me and forget all about it.
You're a smart man, and you make me giggle when you write "simulacrum of Phillips," which sounds vaguely anatomical to me, like some obscure switchback in the small intestine.
It's a very good response, and I think I'll address some of it in a future post. Reading over what you wrote, I think I'll reconsider some of what I initially wrote.
Hello,
Without much luck, I was searching for blogs about Home & Garden when I happened across yours. It's a cool blog. Evidently you like telling it like it is! I have a really great ebay website that is easy to use that you may like. If you get a chance, check it out www.licensedbrandsclub.com.
Post a Comment