Amid all the insanities and "Faux and Balanced" in the major newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times, voices of sanity slip into the discussion. Today’s New York Times has such a "slip" with a discussion likely discordant to many in the American societal view, of a complexity and perspective that falls outside the acceptable weltanschauung. But, in many ways, it is those ideas that make us uncomfortable that merit the most focused attention. With that in mind, a hope, that Eric Zencey’s Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy actually gets read and discussed inside "the Village" of media interlocutors.
Zencey focuses his lens on a man that few Americans have likely heard of, "a little-regarded British chemist-turned-economist who wrote before and during the Great Depression… roundly dismissed as a crank… who carried on a quixotic campaign for a radical restructuring of global monetary relationships." He rooted his economic discussions on physics: the economy as a machine which requires energy to run. And, don’t forget the laws of thermodynamics that "forbid perpetual motion." Thus, Soddy warned of economics that treated infinite wealth creation and growth as nothing more than perpetual motion, since you can’t create something out of nothing (Silicon Valley-based internet startups aside).
Soddy — and the entire field of ecological economists — can be summarized to argue that we must be balanced, that wealth is limited and thus debt should be limited, as well, so as not to create unsustainable situations that will create, inexorably, crashes with potentially catastrophic crashes.
Remember that Soddy was "routinely dismissed as a crank" when considering his five prescriptions, amid the Great Depression, for creating a sensible global economic structure.
The first four were to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort. All of these are now conventional practice.
Soddy’s fifth proposal, the only one that remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom, was to stop banks from creating money (and debt) out of nothing.
This last, in essence, would crash the cards of modern fiscal structures: the entire concept of "leveraging," with the same money is loaned out multiple times, would be constrained. If all loans had to be balanced with real assets (remember that old community Savings & Loan where neighbors were able to buy homes using the Christmas accounts of those around them?), much of the House of Cards that have tumbled around us all in the past year would be impossible to recreate.
As we search for paths to a sustainable future, we must understand and structure all society within that conception. Part of the debt pyramid has been a near unlimited borrowing against the future and "eating the capital" of environmental reserves. Soddy’s vision of a real balance in the fiscal system might be part of the structural shift required to step back from this uncontrolled borrowing and create a balanced system that will inhibit future crashes; whether these be economic, energy, or environmental (or all three) in nature.
NOTE: Zencey’s piece is well complimented by Friedman’s column, (NO) Drill, Baby, Drill, which reminds us of "the need to remember that nature provides [an] incredible range of economic services "
Tags: economics, Eric Zencey, New York Times
Related posts:
- Eric Cantor (R-VA) Proposes Groundbreaking Ideas for Creating Jobs: Tax Cuts and Deregulation
- The Lords of Finance Don’t Allocate Capital in the National Interest
- Calls Begin For Washington Post To End Content-Sharing Agreement With Pete Peterson-Funded “Fiscal Times”
- New York Times Becomes Deficit Mania House Organ
- Sen. Feinstein Joins the Fiscal-Scold Seven to Make a Crazy Eight



Spotlight






Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake

Wow, great post. Thanks. Digg is open.
Number 5 is a fascinating idea. Most of us try to save for retirement, but anyone who tried to invest and retire this year would be sorely disappointed. Investment bankers screwed them over, and over. I’ve been thinking about whether number 5 would have solved this problem.
I wonder if Mona Charen will pick up on that?
Wow, the Rutherford Soddy? Too cool, I had no idea.
An easy-to-follow Youtube explains number 5’s ramifications: “Corrupt Banking System”. It should be shown in elementary school.
What Boo said*
Never would have known of Mr Soddy without your post. Thanks for learnin me.
in the zed
I wonder if even loan sharks would loan a person money at $36 to every $1 of assets that they had or could reasonably beg, borrow or steal the way the banks loaned to the hedgefunds?
Let’s clone Soddy… that old crank.
Would payday lenders do it on no more collateral than Friday’s paycheck?
He sounds like a socialist to me.
This kind of talk will be the death of capitalism, or our financial system, whichever comes first.
thanks for this post. I did not know about the history of this appraoch,or that it was considered ‘kooky’. But, I can imagine economists did not like it. The twain is sort of meeting in a journal I first came across a couple of weeks ago.
Ecological Economics
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09218009)
(the auto link thing is not working again when I check it, so just the URL)
Though some may think it gives too much respect to neoclassical economic ideas.
If you’ve had some college econ and thermodynamics, the following article is very readable, and runs down where the analogies hold and where they don’t. The differences between neoclassical assuming a circular flow with no attention to energy balances, 2nd law, temperature, and irreversability, as opposed to thermodynamics that does pay attention to those details, are discussed.
Is neoclassical microeconomics formally valid? An approach based on an analogy with equilibrium thermodynamics.
Tânia Sousa and Tiago Domingos
Ecological Economics
Volume 58, Issue 1, 10 June 2006, Pages 160-169
Bottom line is that some of the math has same structure, but the content and the correspondence between the marks on the paper and measurable quantities in the real world are completely different.
The authors say that you should do two simultaneous systems, one for the econ relationships, but these must obey a thermodynamic laws, which implies that the circular flow is a crude simplification that must be made more realistic now, with possibility of resource exhaustion and high probability of global warming kicking in. They can be modeled as two simultaneous systems, with the thermodynamic model being an source for the ‘circular flow’.
Economists have paid attention to energy balance since before the 1973 oil crisis, and 2nd law, by building ad hoc models where we need to get more and more production out of fewer and fewer available resources. But I don’t know of any attempts to do emprical work based on it. I am not sure we know how to integrate the very simple aggregate production and cost functions used in economics with energy input that can be measured.
I don’t know if I agree with number 5. But it is true that debt must be limited, particularly debt generated through leverage, in order to keep economy stable and from going into weird disequilibrium states that it cannot recover from you. But you don’t need thermodynamics to show that. Funny that economists, especially financial economists, conveniently paid no attention to that before 2007, even though it was known at least ten years ago.
Soddy sure was prescient:
I wonder how ecological economists (Soddy? others?) would direct the trillions our Treasury has slucied towards the banksters?
(and I bet the society he expected when all 5 prescriptions were implemented wouldn’t be spending it as we seem to be….)
Their rates run from 10%-20% a week, just like the mob loan sharks of yesteryear.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_shark
Does anyone want to try comparing the math on loan sharks vs banks at $36 lent for every $1 of assets? I loaned out my calculator.
watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: One Minute, You’re up Half a Million in Soybeans, and the Next. . . .
I believe so I hate the rates they charge but I admit I never looked to hard at who or how they loan to people.
Well, I’m sure all these employes would get a bailout with bonus pay. /s
Problem is.. 36 to 1 is probably not asking high enough leverage in the first place. Didn’t Carlyle Group and others go upwards of 60 and more?
Soddy is the perfect counterpoint to the kind of
Larry Summerseconomic vodoo made funny in this Oxdown post Assume the Existence of Can Opener by wigwam back in March.Wow! What you learn on this site! I knew about Soddy’s career as a physicist…along with Rutherford he discovered the principles of radioactive decay, established decay rates (essential for radiometric dating techniques) and then later set out to discover a whole series of isotopes and decay products of radioactive elements. Won the Nobel Prize for his work!
Soddy’s name sometimes pops up as well in Ecological and Environmental Anthropology (not sure about Economic Anthropology) as contributing to the ideas of energy flows through systems, maintenance costs, etc.
I had no idea that they were the same person!
i’ve been away watching this. very interesting. thanks for sharing it.