Frankly, a reaction to what someone posted, as a reaction, to how the "media" reacted, to the people reacting in NYC is not terribly compelling. From a less reactionary standpoint, I see the riff about "the masses embracing austerity" -- and a discussion of how such a notion would manifest is another matter. And I think it would perhaps be related to "the masses fully understanding a collective need to renounce certain ...properties of our society". That too would be an interesting discussion. (I'd probably want an aisle seat as the movie critic-guy used to say -- when he could still talk that is.)

An interesting take along those lines

http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2011/10/occupy-home-street.html

Wasn't aiming for "compelling", Darren. As an anthropology/communications guy I find it all fascinating, the process, the people, their messages, both explicit and implicit. 

Or maybe I'm just a simpleton.

I agree with Jay that the folks demonstrating should point the finger at themselves if they truly aspire to take control and be responsible. I've been hearing so many messages, some I heartily agree with, some I don't (the unions' involvement scare me). We'll see how the movement and its messages evolve.

Nor was I responding to your personal compellability, if there's such a word. However, I'm assuming that people protesting are indeed interested in compelling others to adopt some behavior. I gather that you authored the comment: "When the masses embrace "austerity" we've got a game-changer." If so, I thought that worthy of further exploration. That's all. Yoroshiku.

Kind of interesting to juxtapose the most recent URL "Occupy Home Street" ideas with Illich's Energy and Equity-rap. While the author's possibly presumptuous, and apparently self-declared "sapient approach" sort of rings a tad hollow; it's fascinating to read his diagnosis that "the decline of net energy per capita is at the root of all of our economic problems"

Heck, Illich sort of says, best I can tell: the advance of net energy per capita beyond a certain threshold,  is the root of inequity.

Dunno about you but to me, that sort of intuits a thing that goes: our economic problems are at the root of greater equity.

Hmm, something to chew on anyway.

resource depletion doesn't jibe with moral decay - how does this scenario play out? - historically? 

Dunno. I think the guy is full of shit, myself.
But let's see, the scenario is: I run out of resources, and my ol' lady splits.
Does that even count?
Would I have to start selling aluminum siding to satisfy this tenet?
Was it me?
Will you buy me a drink, mister?

"When the masses embrace "austerity" we've got a game-changer."

-islandnotes

War is the prime condition that makes austerity possible. In our evolutionary past, the tribe
that put away it's petty differences and waged a successful war garnered more resources
for their offspring following said war. Simply put, those who had the gene for in-group cooperation

during times of conflict (tribalism/nationalism) tended to put more children into the next generation.

Moving along, here is another look at the problem.

Consider the following quote from Hanson's larger work, America 2.0 :

===
http://jayhanson.us/americaNF.htm

In order to prevent collapse on the downside of the net energy curve, Americans must force corporate-special interests completely out of our political environment. A careful review of the progressive assault on laissez faire constitutionalism and neoclassical economics, from the 1880s through the 1930s, explains how this can be done legally and without violence. [9] These early progressives showed how we can save our country. All that is lacking now is the political will. I call this adjustment of our political environment “America 2.0.”

The modification that I am proposing could reduce natural resource consumption by something like 90% and greatly reduce, or possibly eliminate, civil violence caused by the inevitable post-peak-oil-economic collapse.

Our present method of distributing goods and services works something like this:

• Our government loans money to banks, so bankers can operate businesses (which require buildings, computers, furniture, lights, air conditioning, employees, commuting, etc.)
• The bankers then lend money to other businesses, like restaurants, real estate developers, etc. (which also require buildings, computers, commuters, advertising, accountants, etc.)
• So the employees of these restaurants, real estate developers, etc. can buy a car and drive to the store (with even more buildings, computers, commuters, etc.)
• Just to buy a loaf of bread!

The “market system” is the most-inefficient organization in the history of the planet!

Why not simply have government pay someone to pick up that loaf of bread at the bakery and deliver it to the consumer? This is a form of distribution that would eliminate the banks, most of the other businesses, and all the stores. Most Americans would no longer need a car to commute to work or run to the store! However, some private businesses that provide critical services would still be operated but at our government’s direction.

http://jayhanson.us/americaNF.htm

Hey, Hamlet, thanks for that.

Still my impressions, in thinking about it all--

1) My impression of the OWS movement is that it's pretty sophomoric. Without a doubt there's a very legitimate complaint that all of us can make against the exploitation/extortion carried out by the big money boys. Some of us were making that case ten years ago while others were too pre-occupied getting rich. Sure, we've got a real, and righteous case to make against the financial elites. In fact it's exactly the same case some sweatshop worker in Bangladesh might make against me.

It's important to acknowledge the whole spectrum of the issue-- and it's basically impossible to craft sustainable policy without doing so.

2) If the movement gets legs and creates some "change" I wonder what that change will be. Again, as complaints rather than root issues seem to be the focus-- regardless of the rhetoric the focus still seems to be "a better world for me" not a better life for all of us-- which in reality would require most of us to embrace less, rather than more. I don't see that understood much, so I'd be nervous about it.

3) Since it's a sustainability issue it's really important to ask the key question-- just what is it we're trying to sustain? Social and economic inequality so we can maintain our expected standard of living? Highly paid non-value add employment? Enjoying the fact that other people are desperate enough that they'll pick your organic cashews for you and you won't need to be bothered to do it yourself? Cheap shoes?

4) Still, it's great that the conversation can even be had and some of these ideas even uttered. It is an opportunity, and we can only hope it's not co-opted into yet another form of commercialism. If not, and a holistic, systemic world view can be applied-- that's pretty interesting.

So, the reply to Hansen would be-- sure, look at the all those inefficiencies in the system. Look at all that stuff in the way of that loaf of bread. If we got rid of all that structure things would undoubtedly be far more efficient. But what would the 99.9 percent of the people who make their livings contributing to inefficiency now do for a living so they could buy that loaf of bread? Sure, I agree completely with Hansen that in reality, that's where we're going to end up-- but basically I don't see very many people signing up to be bakers-- especially while there's still better paid jobs working for thinktanks discussing sustainability. . .

For what it's worth, that's not my quote. I think punafish, but I'm not sure.

I probably said something like, "Political reality, whether state-run, or market-determined, would need to recognize energy policy, in the broadest sense, to actually change for the better. (Well, better if renouncing stuff for the sake of a more meaningful and convivial livelihood is your bag.)

And that implies politically enacted limits -- more realistic is market-enacted limits (ugly, dat one) And it troubles those of us who really like our jet fuel allocation and our Facebook circle-jerks, and Dorito's, and all the rest.

Frankly, the only embrace of austerity I see is a bunch of sorry fucks walking down the former roadways chanting something like, "My kid needs Dorito's and Facebook, and we're praying to Jesus to fix his rotted tooth."

I'll be with 'em too, with my equally pathetic placard reading, "I need my jet fuel, so I can travel 600 mph!"

So ya, the devil is certainly in the details of austerity. It might be best to just not go there. (Now where'd I put my placard-making kit?)

Yup, that's my quote.

I share the frustration of the protestors. I also share Jay's view that the protestors seem to want to change everything except their own behavior. Maybe not, but that's how it comes across at this juncture.

What makes austerity possible? Makes me wonder what made Jay's chosen austere lifestyle possible (austere relative to mine, that is): Lack of resources? Uneven distribution of resources? Concern for the planet? Cultural conditioning? War? A moral choice to live within the planet's means? Other?

"If we got rid of all that structure things would undoubtedly be far more efficient. But what would the 99.9 percent of the people who make their livings contributing to inefficiency now do for a living so they could buy that loaf of bread?" -JFitz

Jay Hanson's argument is that Capitalism can't run backwards. With declining net-energy, we either
maintain Capitalism thru more frequent resource wars (with Nuclear War being the inevitable conclusion), or we ditch Capitalism entirely, and adopt another means for humans to compete for status, one that isn't
as destructive to our environment as what we practice now.

Send everybody home and give the bread for free. We already have a framework, it's called foodstamps.

IMHO, occupywallstreet might be the beginning spark for meaningful change. Not that I think change is likely. At this point, Industrial Collapse is the only thing that can avert climate collapse. We can collapse consciously, or we can launch the missiles unconsciously.

My money is on the missiles, that's why I now make my home on the B.I.

Great discussion here!   "My impression of the OWS movement is that it's pretty sophomoric," Jay Fitz
Of course, but that is the case with all movements.   Thomas Paine was a pretty sophisticated thinker, but he knew how to rouse the rable.  As is the case generally - a small percentage get the big picture, but most folks are just concerned with getting their share of the perceived pie, or immediate security.  No reason to think this movement will be any different.  Still, the French revolution ultimately accomplished much, even though the populace had to suffer through the reactionary swing of the Napoleonic era, and there were many undeserving victims (including, ultimately and ironically, Thomas Paine, who contracted his penultimate illness in a French jail).

More than a century ago some thinkers realized that  a couple of carpenters from two completely different countries and cultures had more in common in many ways than a banker and a carpenter from the same country. The work of nationalist politicians  has been largely to smooth out these differences and create an artificial tribe mentality based primarily on regional boundaries that often has little to do with the working or middle class's real interests.  Thus the prevalent jingoism for the last several centuries, no matter what your nationality. (Workers of the world should unite!)

We may be running short of cheap energy but at this time in history there is no shortage of food world wide, only the inequities of distribution.  The first goal of any revolutionary movement is to somewhat level these inequities. (Usually accomplished by force, as history records few instances of the super-wealthy voluntarily giving up any percentage of their booty.)  Only then can more sophisticated attempts at restructuring society be accomplished - if ever.

This chart says a lot:
http://imgur.com/i3zIM

Yes, that chart does say it all, and it is an obscenity!

Boston Police Brutally Assault Occupy Boston

http://occupyboston.com/2011/10/11/boston-police-brutally-assault-occupy-boston/

For purposes of discussion nation-state governments can be regarded as very large corporations whose assets ideally are owned by the citizens.  Instead of gambling in the stock market the citizens ideally are rewarded with reasonable health care, economic security, and a hope for a reasonably secure retirement in return for their hard work and law-abiding behavior.  In the case of the U.S. our head "CEO" even now makes a pretty reasonable salary compared to the CEOs of other corporations or nations.  He works a lot of hours (essentially on duty 24/7) and he and his wife have to dress reasonably well to interact with other heads of states and bigwigs.  Of course, after he leaves office is when he really makes the big bucks!  None of our representatives, senators, or other public employees make anything like the salaries of the top private corporate honchos.  The ones that are filthy rich are so because of connections with private corporations, or family inheritance.  There is an age-old argument as to whether the independently wealthy or financially needy can best serve the people, and there are good justifications on both sides - beyond the scope of this discussion perhaps.

I do not agree with the tea-baggers that government is the source of all problems economic.  In fact it is the influence of large multi-national companies that is the problem. For example: The U.S. government would not be fighting so many pointless and expensive wars if it were not for the pressure brought by the corporations which manufacture and sell ordinance.  The US government has done many things of benefit for the citizens over the years, and without a profit motive.  That is because, at its best, it represents the will of the people, including the minorities.  All over the northwest where I live is the evidence of government at its best; bridges, buildings, and roads built well and to last during the great depression.  Much of the infrastructure along the west coast was built by the government; that is, by the citizens, not by private contractors out to make huge profits.  But during World War II the government handed over things to private corporations (of course I am simplifying quite a bit), and as Eisenhower warned, the growth of the military-industrial complex created much of the current mess.  A culture of destruction.  Blow it up and build it again and again - for profit!  Massive pressure from wealthy sock-holders for huge profits without regard to workers or consumers, etc.

One of the basic problems is that we allow private for-profit corporations to exploit the commons without reasonable return to the citizen owners.  As the Indians put it, nobody really owns the Earth, we are just temporary stewards.  Yet US law lets corporations exploit vast tracts of land and mineral assets with little return to the people, let alone thought of the future.  Even North Slope Alaskan oil taxes return a pitiful percentage compared to the Scandinavian countries which insist their oil be utilized for the benefit of the entire country.  

Considering the exploitation of limited resources:
Any decent government controlled even nominally by its citizens has a better chance of a more measured use of Earth's resources than a for-profit corporation.(Exhibit 1 - the Scandinavian countries) The blue-fin tuna fishery is a perfect example of this.  Japanese based fishing corporations are willing to kill off the entire species in order to push prices to the highest levels.  

My basic argument then might be this:
Structurally, the for-profit corporation by its very nature, is more detrimental to our social and physical environments than most governments.  
Put that in your tea bag and soak it!

It's also worth considering that a large portion of economic prosperity was made possible by the direct de facto subsidy of business interests--at all levels--through government funded construction of critical infrastructure. Most of that infrastructure is old now--and the money doesn't exist to replace or repair it. For an economy to function sustainably it must operate in large degree like an ecosystem, where the vast majority gathered energy is returned to site for consumption of the system as a whole. When individuals gain power enough to scarf of a majority for themselves, not returning any to site, impoverishment is the inevitable result.

My basic argument then might be this:
Structurally, the for-profit corporation by its very nature, is more detrimental to our social and physical environments than most governments.    -- mrostron

Indeed. I would add that, what transcends these two entities of gov. and corp. is a multifaceted corruption. And a unifying theme to that is the "education" (propaganda/school -- media) that has its underpinnings in the maintenance of hierarchy. Surely, supposed reason, infected with the meme of works such as Darwin's Descent of Man, further justified hierarchy (or fascism in the worst case). (factoid: The nazis distributed radios to every household as a very key element of their ascent to power.)

So I suppose my basic argument is that the status quo need be seriously tweaked. And first on my list would be a schooling system that masquerades as the way to greater equity, through very effective perpetuation of "professionalism" (with twisted outcomes such as a constitutional lawyer/stellar schoolboy, made President, supporting assassination without due process, wages war, and is awarded a Nobel peace prize, etc.)

Dang, that sounds pretty ranty, but greater equity would seem to imply lesser hierarchy, and I'd think we'd need to lift a few veils on that one -- but as Jay has put it, you end up with a house of cards falling that not many are very comfortable about participating in.

True.

Still, my hope would be that if you can get people to actually question the dogmatic position of "growth for growth's sake is always a justifiable goal" even in the slightest, you very nearly end up with a cascade of realizations, even a tautology, that inevitably will find one holding a nearly polar opposite position. I think at some level many sense this, even if they haven't thought it through. Hence the vehement resistance.