Thomas,
It looks like you grasped Hubbert's basic idea. My sense is that what
Hubbert is saying is much easier to grasp than to keep together. His
prescription follows logically from his diagnosis even though his diagnosis
implies that the whole system (of production/distribution) is based on a
fallacy. That is sort of like printing up written instruction leaflets on
"how to read" -- those who can follow the instructions don't need them and
those who need them can't follow the instructions.
I think Hubbert's critique of the "you can't get something for nothing"
ideology is dead on. What the propagandists *really* mean is "YOU can't get
something, but WE can!" And, of course, they do.
It seems that just getting something for nothing under the rules of the game
isn't enough for some of them, they have to steal even more -- witness the
conveniently forgotten BCCI scandal. A court judgement last month for $1.16
billion against former Saudi intelligence boss, Sheik Abdul Raouf Khalil,
for his part in the embezzlement of $10 billion didn't even show up on the
media radar screen. IT'S NOT NEWS THAT THE SUPER RICH STEAL.
How do they get away with it? Because people making $30,000, $40,000 or
$50,000 a year don't want to admit that they couldn't have even as much as
they do have if left ENTIRELY to their own devices. The proud fantasy that
"I worked hard to earn everything I've got" keeps away the uncomfortable
fact of our radical social dependency. (And it insults lots of people who
worked even harder and don't have f-all to show for it).
The traditional Marxist argument about exploitation of the workers feeds
into the illusion. According to the traditional argument, the workers
produce even MORE value than they receive in wages. That WAS part of Marx's
argument, but it was for capitalism, an economic system that has been
supplanted by the direct application of science and technology to industry,
which is also part of Marx's argument.
What I'm trying to say -- albeit impressionistically -- is that getting from
Hubbert's diagnostic "A" to his prescriptive "B" is a lot harder than the
logical bee line he pursues. One can imagine a psycho-analyst shaking his
patient by the shoulders, shouting, "Can't you see? It's all a neurotic
obsession brought on by repressed erotic impulses toward your unresponsive
father! Get over it, man! Get a life! Remember!"
Thomas Lunde wrote:
>I have read this quote several times. Not easy to grasp the essentials but
>as I read it, the author is saying that the whole concept of wages for
>labour is based on a fallacy - that it cannot be so!
>
>The reason, as I grok it, is that the energy it takes to maintain a human
>life exceeds the amount of productivity that a persons labour will produce.
>
>The conclusion is that until we add in the externalities of the "free"
>energy which is more or less equally distributed on the Earth's surface as a
>fact, whether the life in question is a billionare or a panhandler, the
>concept of wages for labour is a shell game.
>
>Can I take this to mean that in a "true" economic system, a Basic Income of
>the equivalent free energy is given to every human being? And following
>from that any additional productivity can then be added to this monetized
>Basic Income so that those who produce something recieve additional too
>their Basic Income.
>
>Rather than the current situation as basically advocated by the neo-con
>mindset that if you don't work, you starve. In other words he is saying no
>one starves because everyone gets their share and some reduced amount who
>chose to devote time to producing goods and services then get more.
>
>In essence, then, this monetary payment for free energy would be added into
>every product or service and that sum would be set aside to pay the Basic
>Income? As I said, this is not easy to grasp in reality, though I like his
>debunking of the current explanations.
>
>Help me out Tom,
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
