Why Economics has to be Revised


We have written here before about the need for extraeconomical zones, zones that do climaterestorative activity without being part of global trade or interacting with the financial system. We currently have massive swaths of potential farmland and ocean lying fallow, because we have a carboncredit economy, and carbon is scarce. Releasing ourselves of the basic premise of economics, the maximalization of utilization of everything, is essential for our survival.

Maersk made $461 Billion in 2012 with logistics, obviously an enormous waste of energy, but excellent because trade is good for the economy

Recently for the first time mainstream media mentioned the End Permian Extinction in reference to our current predicament. We knew about this a few years back, it’s a matter of digging into the questions posed by our situation on the basis of a desire to live, to survive. At a certain point you come across the tale of the Siberian Traps vulcano’s increasing atmospheric CO2 triggering a chain of events that killed 95% of all life on earth, paving the way for dinosaurs. Millions of years of organic silence came between, at temperatures 12 degrees warmer than today.

The End Permian Extinction is about to be repeated, taking humanity to the grave 

The world is trying but is basically inert to pleas for change, and the reason is simple : Economics. Supporters of economics will say “Everything works because of economics, and nothing without”, so they agree with the fundamental responsibility of economics for our present predicament. No reason to be insulted or feel disrespect, it is everyday news how economic considerations kill more life around us, put more people in hardship and deplete more resources. Most of the time it is news of the dissapointment of mainly bankers that no longer see cashflows due to the economic activity. Economic activity is about finding resources and selling them in some form or another. Selling in the market keeps the market going, and economic parameters tell us how much selling is going on, how big the market is, and how much it ‘grows’.

Killing the destructive power of economics for a large part hinges on eliminating fossil fuel cashflow 

Imagine that on an island all farmers one year decide to use their savings in gold to buy what is on the market, one that was vibrant the year before. They all decide to take a sabatical to spend more time with their kids. When harvest time comes they go to the market to use their gold to buy food, and all are dissapointed and all families on the island starve to death the next winter. Sad tale.

The market doesn’t supply itself. It needs suppliers. 

Economics assumes that never happens, but it is happening. Our land is drying up, our oceans are depleted, our air is becoming more poisonous with ozone, our fuels are running out, and all we have is economics to tell us it is getting worse but we can still make the most of it with what we have.

If the well is running dry, you need to start digging, not drinking less. 

If ten strong men from the first island put twenty weak men on a second island and make them farm like slaves, then of course this would be good for the economy. The market could be enriched with all kinds of crafts because the ten strong men would be kings on their island. They could even send their sons to fight to make sure the people on the second island remain weak. They could restrict the diet of the slaves, addict them to drugs, cause internal strife, and exploit that situation. That’s economics too. Few people know Stalin learned from the US how to run his gulags. They where slave manufacturing and a way to restrict consumption. They made perfect economic sense. Wonder why the prison system in the US is the biggest manufacturer?

Nixon turned farmers into slaves of the carboncredit system by ‘modernizing’ allowing corn to enter the food chain.

Don’t fall in the trap to ask an economist about this, they are bullshitters that don’t know they are fundamentally parasitic and proud of it. Ask them about the result and their responsibility (to which they will say either ‘we where wrong, that is human.’ or ‘You didn’t implement our ideas like we meant them.’). Bullshitters is what they are. The result is ghastly, unseltting fucking disasterous. We are on a trajectory towards mass extinction, is that enough to doubt them? Why didn’t anybody apply breaks on our behaviour? Because work means income means consumption means cashflow, and the people desiring cashflow control the market and hold everyone hostage : Do this game or you’ll get nothing. The second island is actually part of the first through wages and access control.

Your wages are your shackles, your supermarket your through. You can’t own, but you can work for money. 

None of this will help humanity to survive, the point is it is a suicidal masochistic philosophy, which it has to be because it is meant to make the people on the second island believe there is no way out. Striving for what captures you makes you the slave. It is like a prisoner told by a fellow prisoner he will be let free if he is very polite, but actually its a lie and the advise is meant to make him an easy prisoner. “Oh, and hit yourself over the head every day, they respect such discipline!”.

We where meant to enjoy working hard, but for the ones we love, not the ones we hate. 

We don’t have a free market, because a free market would escape the current fatalistic trajectory. You can easily tell the market is not free by looking at investment behaviour of banks. You may wonder “But they respond to ROI and business cases”. Yep. Wake up. For years investing in renewables has been ‘too risky’. It is still expensive and only possible if the renewable resources are well contained (offshore wind) extremely expensive (hydrodams) etc. you can simply apply economic rules to see what goes and what doesn’t. Not the openly stated rule, but the one that says “Maximizing resource utilisation”. True, there is progress, but you’ll see this will disrupt economics as we know it. Renewables are a threat to resource dominance and depletion. They lead to resource ownership and replenishement, to recycling, independent growth. You can’t have growth independent of the central contract of economics, money. It is the wooden dagger in the heart of the vampire.

The effect of renewables is the introduction of productive power without ownership or cost 

Say the farmers on the second island got smart, they build a wind turbine that supplied ammonia fuel (NH3) for mechanical tractors. They’d build silicon control systems to run the tractors and do everything else like sampling the soil, weeding, processing, etc, mechanically and using renewable fuels. Within no time they would live a life of abundance on their island. The ten strong men from the first island would still come to fetch the food and sell it to the market, but nobody would care, until maybe the twenty grew strong enough to take over. But one could wonder why they would. Meanwhile the new slaves would be on the first island, maybe without knowing it, toiling to buy their food in the market, not knowing they could be lazy farmers.

Renewables shifts the game to where it is no longer important to have a market, because the essential resource energy no longer needs to be secured from it. This is the bond of slavery, oil and money to buy oil. It is time to make this clear and tell the world renewables can free us from these bonds, they can allow us to farm, build, manufacture without having to go to anyone time and time again for the same thing, energy, so without a phylosophy that keeps us believing we are right in doing so, without economics.

The traders took over and can’t fix the drop in supply, reluctant to give power to producers. 

To replace it we need a new Economics, what we call roboeconomics, which is about renewable based automation of essential farming and ecorestauration, and subsequently everything else we desire. The energy is available in extreme abundance, we don’t have to pay for it, we don’t have to work for it. Gulag days are over. The way to get there is by requiring maximum investment of resources into renewables, ecorestauration, automation of the same while keeping people alive, fed, comfortable but without respecting ‘the market’. The best way to do that is to start new economies, extraeconomic zones as we named them, smart second islands, until the power is there to integrate the second island approach in the first one, and get enough strong men to tilt the scales.

What if farmers used renewables to work and fertilize? They would produce free food, be able to ask any prize because they would not need anything from you. 

This is a strategy for survival of the human race on Earth, it is a challenge with an enormous prize, life. It needs to be demonstrated as often as possible, which is best achieved by bringing renewables to manufacturers of essential goods first. By building fertilizer wind turbines, by reducing logistics and forcing banks to invest in energy sources (not biomass). By telling economist their metrics are signs of a suicidal pathology. “The economy shank the second quarter” “Wind threatens the nuclear industry”..GOOD