3 ms·
The author seems to conflate all opposition to the current flavour of globalisation with nationalism. Nationalism in this context basically means thinking that
by A1kmm 16y ago
The author seems to conflate all opposition to the current flavour of globalisation with nationalism. Nationalism in this context basically means thinking that your country and their people are best and so things made there are better - and if someone's only reason for believing that is that they were born there, or that they were brainwashed to believe it, that is irrational.
There are examples of nationalism in the United States holding back some forms of globalisation. For example, in a truly global world every country would have open borders to anyone who wanted to immigrate there, and saying that someone can't come to your country because that would take jobs from 'more deserving' locals is a form of nationalism.
However, "local food, DIY, sustainability" are not examples of nationalism. Instead, they are an expression of growing discontent about inadequate price signals for externalities like climate change and peak oil, and that much global trade is focused around avoiding environmental and labour protection laws, and exploiting third world countries, rather than genuine comparative advantages and economies of scale.
- fleitz 16y agoLocal Food, DIY, and Sustainability are not about inadequate price signals for climate change and peak oil. They are about creating consumer surplus via PR, and nostalgia for early 20th century farming techniques. Admittedly, most people in the industry have no idea that this is what they are doing, but thats the beauty of good PR and healthy dose of nostalgia. That is to say the reason most people pay the price premium for organo-locavore food is that it makes them believe they are better people, not because they believe that futures contracts for degree days are mispriced. Walk into a Whole Foods and ask what the appropriate prices of a heating degree day is once climate change and peak oil are priced in and they will give you a blank look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_derivatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_derivatives Hell I bet you could phone up John Mackey himself and he wouldn't have the slightest idea. Believe me there are a lot of guys in hedge funds trying to price in peak oil through futures contracts and in the pricing the long term value of certain stocks, various forms of insurance, risk swaps. Both climate change and peak oil can easily be traded on the various global futures markets. People who believe that climate change and peak oil are mispriced in the market not opening organic rooftop urban gardens, they are opening trading accounts (and will make a killing if they are right)
- _delirium 16y agoBut the point is to actually do something about it, not just get rich off the prediction. Trading climate change on futures markets does not mitigate it, unless those futures are somehow tied to something else that would cause them to be priced in (like a carbon tax, or tradable emissions caps). To remove it as an externality, you have to somehow price it into the products that are causing the problem, either via decentralized consumer action, or via centralized governmental action. I'm skeptical decentralized consumer action will succeed, and I agree that much of it is poorly targeted, but it's at least the right idea of how to tackle things: if something is not priced in, you have to take action that will force it to be priced in somehow, like preferring one product to another, boycotting some products, banning products, or internalizing the externality via a tax/fee. Just trading bets on it in a futures market doesn't do anything.
- fleitz 16y agoThe point of getting rich from the prediction is to have the money to create the change, not idiotically growing vegetables on your apartment roof, thinking that your building's roof contains 40m2 of arable land per occupant. Generally people use futures markets to mitigate risk. Therefore if you believe that oil is mispriced you can use a futures contract to mitigate the effects you have with regard to peak oil (increased prices). Similarly, those who may be affected by rising sea levels (coastal areas) can trade risk with those who will be insulated (inland areas). The reason why environmentalists don't use these markets to put their money where there mouth is, is because they are much better at scaring people than predicting the future. Hence, if Greenpeace were to buy the futures contracts reflecting its peak oil predictions it would likely lose a lot of money that could better be spent scaring people and collecting membership dues. Greenpeace's expertise is fear mongering, not making accurate predictions with regard to the future price of oil, or climate. If it had such an ability it would have more than enough money to fund its operations, and would not have people on the street collecting money and talking about global warming / peak oil. Most rational people know that we will eventually see peak oil and that prices will gradually rise making alternative forms of energy more economical in comparison. Buying expensive local food now is a waste of money, it's better to save that money in an interest bearing account and use it in the future when local and non-local food equalize in price. (Note: Shipping an apple across a continent actually uses less gas than to drive it home, note never let a locavore know this, it ruins their girl-meets-tractor fantasies of urban farming.) See the Simon-Erhlich wager for examples of environmental stupidity with regard to economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager