Friday Fungus: Making cars from mushrooms

You’ve read that right, folks! Ford are looking at manufacturing car parts from mushrooms – well sort of anyway:

Ford is collaborating with eco start-up Evocative Design in the development of a biodegradable foam made from mushrooms. The fungus-based foam could be used in bumpers, side doors and dashboards. The key ingredient in the manufacturing process is mycelium, the branching fibers of a mushroom’s root system. Evocative Design has developed mycelium into an incredibly strong binding agent that is applied to other organic materials such as corn and oat husks. The organic material is combined with mycelium in trays that serve as the mold for various auto parts. The living mycelium intertwines with the organic material in the molds for five days. Then the forms are heated and dried into sturdy, lightweight automotive components that are also waterproof and fireproof. If the Ford/Evocative Design collaboration takes off, cars of the future could end up in compost heaps instead of landfills.

Brings a whole new world a ‘grow your own’ closer! And, for all those “peak oil” obsessives – this is how the market responds to rising prices. By finding substitutes – like chicken feathers, for example!

...

Do you want a Marxist government?

Many folk like to draw a comparison between the leadership of the Conservative Party and "New" Labour. "There's no difference"; these folk cry; "Cameron is just the reincarnation of Blair." After two days in the presence of a collection of avowed (well those I asked) Labour supporters, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. Here's a selection of the thoughts and comments of these people. Ask yourselves whether you think David Cameron believes any of this?

"The triple challenge of peak oil, climate change and financial collapse. Indicative of the crisis of late capitalism."

"We need a new definition of wealth. Common wealth rather than private wealth."

On the suggestion that he meant the nationalisation of land: "Yes, bring it on."

"There is a new paradigm. An end to the rational-economic model." (one presumes it will be replaced by an irrational economic model).

"We need to abolish land value. And replace it with social value."

All of the people expressing these views were academics, policy-makers in government agencies - people not without influence. These were not the ravings of a Marxist fringe. People believe this rubbish. But none of those people are Conservatives, none of those people run private businesses, and none of those people are David Cameron.

However, the labour Party, large chunks of the Liberal Democrat Party and, of course, the ghastly Green Party have been entirely taken in by this dangerous and deluded reincarnation of the Marxist myth of government directed salvation.

So don't blame me if your protest vote results in a Marxist government.

....

How searching for a "new economic model" is a threat to all our futures

***


I make no apologies for returning to the theme of economic policy and to the ongoing search for a new economic model. Sometimes – as appears, I hope, to be the case with George Osborne’s recent Mais Lecture – this search is driven by the requirements of rhetoric. Osborne is really talking about economic policy rather than the model of the economy:

"Britain has been failed by the economic policy framework of the last decade. It promised stability, prudence and an end to the cycle - it delivered instability, imprudence and the biggest boom followed by the deepest bust.

We need to head in a completely new direction. We have to move away from an economic model that was based on unsustainable private and public debt. And we have to move to a new model of economic growth that is rooted in more investment, more savings and higher exports. This will require new policies and new institutions."

Now while there is a reference to “a new model of economic growth” the context is about things the Government can influence. Things like higher rates of business investment, more savings and manufacturing that must be predicated on having a much smaller government, less regulation and more trust in the citizen.

But a lot of other people seem to think that prior to 1776, there weren’t any free markets and that Adam Smith designed the “economic model” that has driven the unprecedented growth in human wealth and happiness since that time! These people are stupid and live in the same box as the (overlapping) group who want us all to live on smallholdings, grow our own spuds and keep goats. So let’s look at one of the worst offenders:

The New Economics Foundation:

“There is nothing ‘natural’ about our current economic arrangements. They have been consciously designed to achieve a simple objective: growth. But growth is not making us happier, it is creating dysfunctional and unequal societies, and if it continues will make large parts of the planet unfit for human habitation.”

Did you guys actually read “The Wealth of Nations” before you started saying that our economic arrangements were “designed”? Maybe you can point to the time and place of that design, the people involved and how it was implemented? You can’t, can you because what you’re saying is a lie. Our economic arrangements are the consequence of human ingenuity, the triumph of exchange and the wonder that is the free market.

Oh and the answer to this question you pose:

“At nef, we want to break that vicious cycle by building a new macro-economic model that is geared not towards growth, but towards achieving the outcomes that are important to society and that can be sustained by the planet's finite carrying capacity.”

Is really simple too – it’s called “the price mechanism” and you appear to have forgotten how it works (maybe because it was a long time ago in lesson two of GCSE Economics). The price mechanism is a:

“System of interdependence between supply of a good or service and its price. It generally sends the price up when supply is below demand, and down when supply exceeds demand. Price mechanism also restricts supply when suppliers leave the market due to low prevailing prices, and increases it when more suppliers enter the market due to high obtainable prices.”

If you allow environmental and social goods to be owned and traded – rather than carrying on with the myth of “public goods” – the price mechanism will meet all NEF’s needs. Without us having a “new economic model”.

The problem is that NEF are not really interested in individual initiative, innovation or even in any allowance for private action. What NEF wants is a state-directed and mandated programme aimed at breaking the free market model. Despite the rhetoric of sustainability, social justice and well-being, NEF’s agenda (and that of others involved in “green” economics) is philosophically indistinguishable from this:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

A “progressive” government must take command of the economy and direct it to the benefit of all – as determined by the leaders of that progressive government. Now that worked very well here and here and especially here:

“We do not wish to copy anyone; we shall use the experience gained in the course of the liberation struggle. There are no schools, faculties or universities in the traditional sense, although they did exist in our country prior to liberation, because we wish to do away with all vestiges of the past. There is no money, no commerce, as the state takes care of provisioning all its citizens.”

The green economic model threatens not just the wealth and happiness we enjoy but worse it threatens the future opportunities for millions who do not yet have the pleasures of a free market civilization. And all the “sustainability strategy”, “social outcome measures”, “local multipliers” and “zero growth” that NEF and others talk about do not change the truth that the risks associated with a move away from a free system are too great for us to countenance allowing such people lose on our economy.

....