Michael Hoexter

http://www.futurelab.net/company/people/michael_hoexter

• Occupation:  I work in the marketing of energy efficient products and services and renewable energy in California
• Organisation: Freelance

Profile

• I’m a LEED-AP, have a background in psychology (Ph.D. from Michigan) with a focus on linguistics and semiotics, software development and sales.
• My Green Thoughts blog and site, is a place to read about and discuss issues related to clean energy policy, the marketing and selling of greener products and services as well as the technical issues that impact the market.

Passionate about: Seeing both the reasons why people don’t do “the right thing” as well as why they do.

Michael Hoexter

http://www.futurelab.net/tags/Michael-Hoexter

Book Announcement from Danny Harvey: Energy and the New Reality Vols. 1&2

I recently became acquainted with the work of Danny Harvey, Prof. of Geography and a climate scientist at U. Toronto. Over the last few years, Danny has been putting together a large-scale energy plan that might be called a Renewable Electron Economy, to which a portion of this website is devoted. I believe Danny’s work is invaluable because he presents a great deal of detail about a wide range of technological solutions and also links these to climate scenarios.

Read more ...

Politics 2100: Blogging as if the Future Mattered

http://politics2100.wordpress.com/

Today, the debate in Washington about the debt ceiling and budget deficits has been skewed beyond recognition, endangering the viability of government as an effective instrument of popular will.  The intent to cut federal spending in the face of a crisis of demand in the private economy is currently shared by mainstream political actors of both Parties, even though many distinguished economists and enlightened businesspeople see a severe economic downturn ahead if government spending is cut dramatically.  Those few who have an understanding of macroeconomics have been until now effectively shut out of the discussion.  Fragments of real economic concerns are embedded in largely false narratives about the economy and trotted out for the political and economic benefit of established players or added to a chaotic whirl of words that benefits no one.

Official Washington’s alarm about rising public budget deficits is entirely mistimed from the point of view of the welfare of the American people and the stability of the economy; politicians are striving to appear as the most virtuous budget cutter at a time when households are struggling under past debts and can’t afford to buy new goods and services, shrinking the overall economy.   Government spending is, for the economy as a whole, the only way out at this time, even if at a later date this spending will need to be curbed.  On top of deficit mania, is the use of the threat of not raising the debt ceiling by Republicans to demand even more savage cuts to the economic role of government and to the already fragile social safety net.  These deficit terrorists are trying to realize their quixotic, nostalgic dream of a “limited government” society that will start to look more and more like the world of Mad Max or 19^th Century America with grinding depressions every decade or two, vast social inequality, and violent social unrest.

The debt ceiling crisis in Washington has exposed President Obama as an easily manipulated leader of the party that might have stood against the push to cut public spending and tank the economy, i.e. the Democrats.  Obama has attempted to use the debt ceiling debate, in efforts to appear “serious” and “adult” to poorly informed parts of the electorate, to demand a package of both spending cuts and tax increases.  He has wanted to “go big” particularly on spending cuts to show that he is willing to compromise while misrecognizing the intents and the tactics of his Republican opponents.  He has been abdicating his role as a defender of the American public against the depredations of the increasingly deranged Tea Party Right by offering unnecessary concessions and cuts in social spending.  His Administration seems also to be firmly in the pocket of Wall Street as is his Republican opposition, even though at this time Wall Streeters are probably most concerned about the debt ceiling being raised by any means necessary.  Either out of entirely naive idealized notions about compromise or sly, corrupt collusion with the off-kilter goals of his adversaries, Obama has continued to strengthen his Republican opponents by not fighting with them.

Pres. Obama, Tea Party Republicans and Deficit Hawks are, Together, Ripping Up the American Tapestry

http://politics2100.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/americantapestry/

Today, the debate in Washington about the debt ceiling and budget deficits has been skewed beyond recognition, endangering the viability of government as an effective instrument of popular will.  The intent to cut federal spending in the face of a crisis of demand in the private economy is currently shared by mainstream political actors of both Parties, even though many distinguished economists and enlightened businesspeople see a severe economic downturn ahead if government spending is cut dramatically.  Those few who have an understanding of macroeconomics have been until now effectively shut out of the discussion.  Fragments of real economic concerns are embedded in largely false narratives about the economy and trotted out for the political and economic benefit of established players or added to a chaotic whirl of words that benefits no one.

Official Washington’s alarm about rising public budget deficits is entirely mistimed from the point of view of the welfare of the American people and the stability of the economy; politicians are striving to appear as the most virtuous budget cutter at a time when households are struggling under past debts and can’t afford to buy new goods and services, shrinking the overall economy.   Government spending is, for the economy as a whole, the only way out at this time, even if at a later date this spending will need to be curbed.  On top of deficit mania, is the use of the threat of not raising the debt ceiling by Republicans to demand even more savage cuts to the economic role of government and to the already fragile social safety net.  These deficit terrorists are trying to realize their quixotic, nostalgic dream of a “limited government” society that will start to look more and more like the world of Mad Max or 19^th Century America with grinding depressions every decade or two, vast social inequality, and violent social unrest.

The debt ceiling crisis in Washington has exposed President Obama as an easily manipulated leader of the party that might have stood against the push to cut public spending and tank the economy, i.e. the Democrats.  Obama has attempted to use the debt ceiling debate, in efforts to appear “serious” and “adult” to poorly informed parts of the electorate, to demand a package of both spending cuts and tax increases.  He has wanted to “go big” particularly on spending cuts to show that he is willing to compromise while misrecognizing the intents and the tactics of his Republican opponents.  He has been abdicating his role as a defender of the American public against the depredations of the increasingly deranged Tea Party Right by offering unnecessary concessions and cuts in social spending.  His Administration seems also to be firmly in the pocket of Wall Street as is his Republican opposition, even though at this time Wall Streeters are probably most concerned about the debt ceiling being raised by any means necessary.  Either out of entirely naive idealized notions about compromise or sly, corrupt collusion with the off-kilter goals of his adversaries, Obama has continued to strengthen his Republican opponents by not fighting with them.

President Obama has Let the Barbarians In…Now We (or He) are Going to Have to Drive Them Out

http://politics2100.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/barbarians/

Before the advent of a world economic system in the last few centuries, agriculture-based civilizations like the Greek, Roman or Chinese empires often faced attacks from confederations of warrior tribes, like the Mongols, the Huns, Vikings etc.  These “barbarians,” who turned from hunter-gatherer or herder ways of life to plundering each other or neighboring agrarian societies, sometimes were integrated into existing agrarian empires or alternatively broke up or destroyed larger civilizations via successive attacks over periods of decades or centuries.  The award-winning 1990 book and subsequent movie “Barbarians at the Gate” re-popularized the term, in this case as a description for ruthless, ego-driven corporate take-over specialists in the 1980’s.

While there are still plenty of figurative “barbarians” on Wall Street, barbarian also applies as term to the behavior and goals of the current Republican leadership in Congress and in allied “Tea Party” organizations.  The Republicans have laid siege to government over the last 30 years, developing a culture of “barbarian” disregard for the usefulness of government.  Republicans have created a culture in which plundering government for their own sakes and that of their patrons is “OK”, “natural” and normal-seeming.  They have shown little regard for the activities that maintain the wealth of a society as a whole, including paying taxes to pay for public amenities that benefit the entire society.  While some Republicans are rude in their behavior as one would expect of the barbarians of ancient history, not many act in an overtly loutish manner; there is a shrewd strategic element to the chaos that these political barbarians have been creating which should not be underestimated.

President Obama has through the first two years of his Presidency appeared as though he doesn’t realize that he is dealing with people who are operating by a different set of rules, who represent interests that have ruthless disregard for others.  He has acted as though he is not even in a fight with them, that their cooperation is assumed.  Meanwhile his opponents have treated him both openly and also covertly as an enemy to be defeated.  This has given them an advantage because almost all means of combat are open to them, while he has restricted himself and thereby the leadership of the Democratic Party, to the politest and even quite deferential approaches to them.  In terms of game theory, he has shown them that he will never “defect”, while they can choose to cooperate or defect as they would like.   The Republicans’ approach has increased their power rather than diminished it.  He has conceded the high ground to people who, in terms of governing our current society, have little sense for how not to “grind the face of the poor into the dust” and dismember valuable social institutions for the gain of a few economic warlords.

Today, it has been uncovered that right-wing Christian fundamentalist “therapist” Marcus Bachmann, the husband of Republican Presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, has called gay people “barbarians” that need to be educated and “cured” of their gay impulses.  While I find this use of the term laughable and inaccurate, I believe my use of the term here actually explains something about our political system and how people think about economic and political spoils.  While I am aware of and am comfortable with its pejorative connotations in my application of the word, I cannot control its misapplication by others.

President Obama has Let the Barbarians In…Now We (or He) are Going to Have to Drive Them Out

http://politics2100.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/barbarians/

Before the advent of a world economic system in the last few centuries, agriculture-based civilizations like the Greek, Roman or Chinese empires often faced attacks from confederations of warrior tribes, like the Mongols, the Huns, Vikings etc.  These “barbarians,” who turned from hunter-gatherer or herder ways of life to plundering each other or neighboring agrarian societies, sometimes were integrated into existing agrarian empires or alternatively broke up or destroyed larger civilizations via successive attacks over periods of decades or centuries.  The award-winning 1990 book and subsequent movie “Barbarians at the Gate” re-popularized the term, in this case as a description for ruthless, ego-driven corporate take-over specialists in the 1980’s.

While there are still plenty of figurative “barbarians” on Wall Street, barbarian also applies as term to the behavior and goals of the current Republican leadership in Congress and in allied “Tea Party” organizations.  The Republicans have laid siege to government over the last 30 years, developing a culture of “barbarian” disregard for the usefulness of government.  Republicans have created a culture in which plundering government for their own sakes and that of their patrons is “OK”, “natural” and normal-seeming.  They have shown little regard for the activities that maintain the wealth of a society as a whole, including paying taxes to pay for public amenities that benefit the entire society.  While some Republicans are rude in their behavior as one would expect of the barbarians of ancient history, not many act in an overtly loutish manner; there is a shrewd strategic element to the chaos that these political barbarians have been creating which should not be underestimated.

President Obama has through the first two years of his Presidency appeared as though he doesn’t realize that he is dealing with people who are operating by a different set of rules, who represent interests that have ruthless disregard for others.  He has acted as though he is not even in a fight with them, that their cooperation is assumed.  Meanwhile his opponents have treated him both openly and also covertly as an enemy to be defeated.  This has given them an advantage because almost all means of combat are open to them, while he has restricted himself and thereby the leadership of the Democratic Party, to the politest and even quite deferential approaches to them.  In terms of game theory, he has shown them that he will never “defect”, while they can choose to cooperate or defect as they would like.   The Republicans’ approach has increased their power rather than diminished it.  He has conceded the high ground to people who, in terms of governing our current society, have little sense for how not to “grind the face of the poor into the dust” and dismember valuable social institutions for the gain of a few economic warlords.

Today, it has been uncovered that right-wing Christian fundamentalist “therapist” Marcus Bachmann, the husband of Republican Presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, has called gay people “barbarians” that need to be educated and “cured” of their gay impulses.  While I find this use of the term laughable and inaccurate, I believe my use of the term here actually explains something about our political system and how people think about economic and political spoils.  While I am aware of and am comfortable with its pejorative connotations in my application of the word, I cannot control its misapplication by others.

resident Obama’s Persistent Strategic Error: Mistaking Inside-the-Beltway Reality for “Real” Reality

http://politics2100.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/politicalreality/

Progressives and others who are concerned about the content of discussion in Washington are now divided on a critical issue:  to what degree should one hold responsible President Obama for errors or failures in the last two years, as well as the strengthening of Republicans after Democrats’ decisive electoral defeats of the GOP in 2006 and 2008?  These divisions depend on how different supporters and former supporters of Obama would answer a number of relevant questions:

1. What would you like to see happen in Washington and in politics more generally?
2. What do you believe is the current and potential power of the American Presidency?  How important is the “bully pulpit” and the President’s influence on popular opinion?
3. How important is “supporting your team” (in the upcoming election) as opposed to holding out for principled policy?
4. Is Obama at heart a progressive or more of a center-right corporatist or neo-liberal (right-wing on economics, left of center on social issues)?   Or is he simply a careerist without strong ideological commitments?
5. Will Obama always concede to his opponents rather than fight?
6. Do major crises in the real world require leaders to overcome their personal inclinations?

Those who tend to have very ambitious hopes for President Obama or feel that the dire situation of the world calls for dramatic and decisive action, are much more inclined to criticize him.  Also those who feel that the Presidential “bully pulpit” is a critical piece of political weaponry feel that he has been a major disappointmentwhile those who feel that the Presidency has limited powers are more appreciative of his performance.  There are some who fear that it will weaken the President if progressives criticize him, pointing out that Republicans band together much better than Democrats.  Others feel that they must continue to point out his shortcomings, in the hope that he changes his policy or his strategy.

My perspective is that Obama and other Democrats need to be held accountable to what I’m calling “real” reality, the economic reality of Main Street, as well as the real physical reality of the earth’s degradation by our own species as home for…our own species.  Obama, as would any President, has had the potential to mobilize the grassroots in favor of his agenda or an agenda that is more favorable to the interests of “Main Street”, but that he has not done so, disempowering himself and the Presidency at a time of justified popular anger.  I believe that severe real world crises force leaders to confront their own personal preferences and limitations; America in 2008 required a new FDR or a President of similar ambition and nerve.  I care about Obama’s “heart of hearts” commitments and personality only insofar as they impact the American people.

I have been trying to locate a way to describe as simply as possible the common thread among Obama’s political mistakes while avoiding making a statement that is a condemnation of his character, his fundamental political principles, or attributes to him a permanent trait that bars improvement in his performance as President.  Given these assumptions that there is no fundamental flaw, I have come up with a formulation that makes sense of many of his major political mistakes so far.