2 Responses to “California’s cautionary energy tale”

1. Pete Murphy Says:
   April 7th, 2008 at 8:01 am

   “He (Tantan) said California residents tend to live in apartments and smaller homes, or have more people living in the same household, because of the high property prices. He said these factors make California unique, and cannot be applied to other states.”

   This is nothing unique to California. This is the kind of conservation of space that takes place everywhere where population density rises beyond some optimum level. Consider Japan, where the average dwelling space is less than a third of the average Amercan’s.

   Ecologists tend to look upon this as a good thing. As the population grows, increasing urban population density is a means of preserving what little undeveloped, pristine environment remains.

   What no one recognizes is that there is a downside to increasing population density. At this point, I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This happens because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity, or per capita output (which always rises), inevitably leads to rising unemployment and poverty.

   Consider again the example of Japanese housing. The consumption of all products used in the manufacture of homes is less than a third of the level in America. But Japanese workers are just as productive. The result is that employment in these industries is less than a third of what it is in America, forcing these potential workers to find some other work. But what it this low per capita consumption is typical of virtually every product? Where will they find work then?

   This new economic theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The population implication is obvious, buy why trade? It’s because when we engage in free trade in manufactured goods with nations that are much more densely populated than our own, we actually import these effects of an excessive population density – high unemployment and poverty. We become one nation economically. The manufacturing work is spread evenly across the new, combined work force. But, while the other nation gets free access to our healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs.

   If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com. There you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)

   Please forgive the somewhat “spammish” nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new theory into discussions about per capita consumption, population management and trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

   Pete Murphy
   Author, Five Short Blasts

2. The Housekeeper Says:
   May 25th, 2008 at 1:54 am

   Apres California, there go we in the UK, where arguably we have the same profile in the sense that our economy is no longer manufacturing but service-based. We don’t burn up the juice the way we used to either, then. Which would seem to be just as well as the price of energy here is going through the roof.

   BB