Thursday, September 1, 2011
The US industrial economy has moved in tremendously slow "socio-evolutionary cycles" since the dawn of our nations' first nineteenth century industrial age.
What I mean by slow movement is that while technology has constantly evolved, within the context of new inventions socially within the United States of America, the capacity of the entire and whole population to actually absorb the whole economic benefit of a wholly evolved technology moves at a snails pace. Thus, what may have been invented in the nineteenth century and was made obsolete by an invention from the twentieth century might very well be still in use in the twentyfirst century although it has virtually no social or industrial contribution that could be considered as good for our nation's whole current economy and in fact, might even be considered as bad.
As this slowness has perpetually caused economic downturns as well as economic upticks, many believe that the fundamental reason for such bizarre economic girations is the fact that within the framework of any singular industrial revolution, the government charged with managing the whole new growth of a whole new industrial era simply looses sight of its actual role of balancing the multi-facited elements of conflicting industrial eras.
As that government is either hopelessly stuck in a previous industrial century or entirely too obsessed with a new industrial century that hasn't quite emerged, the fundamental void in what should be a fluid or a seamless transition of industrial thought between one or more centuries is what actually causes economic hardship for the nation as a whole in its current industrial century.
Simply put, our wrecked or rechid economy of 2011 is a direct result of a government that has lost sight of its actual role of seeing to it that virtually all technological advancements are kept within the realm of relatively common sense thought as that thought is a applied to a whole and current or conteporary common sense industrial marketplace.
An example of this is as follows:
Within the last few years, a mandate to produce energy efficient lightbulbs has filtered through the regulatory process of our federal government. This mandate, in and of itself is a tremendously positive result of the federal government recognizing advancements in private sector technology. Passing laws that bring the technology to the marketplace by recognizing as well that such technology conserves energy is also a plus. While all of this is certainly good, the narrowness of the governments visionary efforts on behalf of the energy efficient lightbulb must be addressed.
The problem with this energy efficient lightbulb technology is that the role of the lightbulb has not changed.
The lightbulb, regardless of its level of efficiency is still consuming energy and even though today in 2011 it is using state of the art technology to consume less energy, the larger issue of how the energy is produced and delivered to the lightbulb is fraught with inefficiency both economically and technologically due solely to the fact that only the economic growth of the lightbulb has been achieved thus far. The governments larger role, that of being a progressive instrument in the seamless transition between the whole electrical utility mechanism of one industrial age to the next is clearly out of whack today in 2011 and as a result our economy is equally out of whack.
As the discussion is now whether or not we in America and our counterparts worldwide are in another economic recession and/or could this economic recession deepen and become worse, the answer of course is yes. And, the answer will remain yes until we in America realize that we are not at all in an economic recession but rather, a full blown industrial depression. In other words, we do not have an economic problem, we have an industrial problem and the only way out if it is for the government to lead not by taxation or non-taxation, not by reducing the deficit or the national debt, but by simply completing a comprehensive set of industrial blueprints that enable private enterprise on all levels of our 21st century advanced technology industrial spectrum to interact intelligenly with one another for the greater benefit of an economy that will more than adequatley produce the revenues needed to simply remove debt and increase savings while spurring virtually constant 21st century industrial (investment) spending. All quite nicely and within the same breath.
Going back to the energy efficient lightbulb for a moment and using the mindset of an industrialist trying to grow a new economy as opposed to the mindset of an economist who is trying to futily manage or micro-manage the redundant finances of an old economy - or better yet, using both mindsets equally to remove discussions of economic recession from our national mindset altogether, how would such a pure industrial redevelopment dialogue actually unfold?
Let me suggest this:
HAVING AN ECONOMIC DISCUSSION THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE DISCUSSING MONEY
Knowing that we have as a nation of industrialists, the brilliant capacity to produce a remarkably efficient light bulb, how do we assure that virtually every home in America is not only using those lightbulbs but the lightbulbs are actually being powered by equally brilliant energy production and energy delivery systems that are actually attached to every home in America?
What questions should emerge from this discussion?
The First Question
Using equally the mindset of the industrialist and the economist, would it be in our collective national best interest here in 2011 to produce a full scale working model of a public electric utility grid(s) that can be contoured to shape, provide and manage the mixed use energy needs of virtually every geographical region in our United States?
The Second Question
As question one above is clearly the topic if not the blueprint for many discussions already taking place in the boardrooms of for profit and not for profit energy development and management corporations throughout America, should these discussions also be taking place in neighborhoods and small towns throughout America at the same time?
The Third Question
If such discussions were to take place simultaneously in virtually every community and in every state and in every reqion of our America, would we not find within the whole broad dynamic of such interactive dialogue, the broader essence of true human capital as such capital is defined in a new work force, a new investment and retirement portfolio for that work force and a new and much broader public sector education initiative?
The Fourth Question
If. at the end of this entire national dialogue, a comprensive acknowledgement that we as a nation must adopt an equally comprehensive nationwide building code that enables everyone of us to prosper from the same structural industrial self discipline that previous generations from previous industrial ages adhered to, would we not find ourselves capable of writing new income tax laws, new corporate tax laws and new municipal transportation and public utility infrastructure tax laws and rates - all of which are designed to benefit virtually every single American?
As within the context of a nation filled with brilliant minds there is the overarching stupidity benchmarked by an entire lack of basic, practical and profitable common sense, the failure of government to remain financially sound here in 2011 simply mirrors the failure of that same government to apply transitional industrial regulation that will affectively merge the minds of multiple industrial ages.
Posted by M.Patrick Dahlke at 5:41 PM