Discussion about this post

User's avatar
ebear's avatar

You raised an important point when you mentioned steel production. You can have all the energy in the world, but if you lack the other resources needed for a modern society, you're going to have to import them from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' can make all the difference.

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/world-iron-ore-reserves-countries/?cf-view

"Despite enjoying some of the world’s biggest deposits of iron ore, the sheer size of China’s steelmaking industry means it still needs to supplement domestic production with foreign supplies, and in 2019 the country accounted for 69% of the commodity’s global imports."

Typically metal ores are not found in the same location as the energy needed to process them, iron ore being just one example. In the case of aluminum, which requires huge amounts of electricity to produce, the smelters are often located at huge distances from the input ore (bauxite) which has to be imported from abroad. Best example of this is Kitimat, a town built in Northern BC in the 50's for the sole purpose of producing aluminum because that's where the hydro power needed to run the smelter is located. So the ore has to be imported from a distance, and the finished product likewise has to travel great distance to the end market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_bauxite_production

I don't know if this point was raised at the conference, but it speaks directly to the distribution of global energy, which depends not only production, but on patterns of consumption. How much of the energy a nation imports is used to heat and light buildings or as a transportation fuel vs. primary production of items such as steel, aluminum, copper and the manufactured goods which use those inputs, and that can be exported to pay for the imported energy?

In simple terms, how many bananas or pineapples do you have to export to pay for a barrel of imported oil? That's the situation in many parts of the world, especially the global south. Is there a comparative advantage that meets Ricardo's formulation of equitable trade, or are some nations always going to run a deficit in order to maintain a minimum state of social well being? Do we pay more for bananas and pineapples (which nobody really needs) to support them, and what happens if people aren't willing to pay the higher price?

It's a simplistic example, but it illustrates the basic problem. Things like steel and aluminum are necessary for modern civilization, while others, like bananas and pineapples, are luxuries we can do without. Even coffee, which most people in the west are addicted to, fits that description. You don't need it to survive, but Colombia and Ecuador definitely need you to buy it from them.

This to me seems like a core issue in the program to construct a multipolar world with equitable distribution of resources. The resources themselves aren't equitably distributed, a simple fact of nature, so how do we overcome that imbalance? On a national scale we can accept the fact that some regions will always run at a deficit, but how do you expand that benevolence to include the entire world? A thorny issue, especially when cultural and political differences get in the way, not to mention the ever present corruption which is rife in the underdeveloped nations you're trying to get on board. How do you address that problem without interfering in the nation's sovereignty?

So many questions...

Expand full comment
Bob marsden's avatar

Equatorial Guinea seems to be a severely toxic sovereignty, a product of a history of imperialist pawnship, with plantations, slavery and immigrant colonialism, both by invited labour and asylum-seekers. It has entrenched systematic institutions of social inequality where the privileged few deprive and impoverish the many. Wikipedia catalogs its persistent nastiness: “Equatorial Guinea is plagued by extreme poverty brought about by wealth inequality.”, and it continues with its atrocities against its people.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo is a very bad man, like his uncle, whom he violently deposed, literally a fascist.

So what can and ought the mutualist new order do about it without interfering in its sovereignty? Perhaps “concentrate efforts on building the sort of nation all the people want” won’t make much difference.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts