Economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have argued that the current stimulus plan...is practically useless or worse... Basically, they argue that the only thing worse than doing nothing is doing too little.

This misrepresents Krugman's position (I haven't read Stiglitz on this). Krugman does criticize the stimulus bill for being too conservative, but he does not say that it is worse than doing nothing. It's better than nothing, just not big enough to properly address the magnitude of the crisis. He also criticizes the package for being too heavily weighted towards tax cuts with not enough spending (which generates greater economic activity per dollar than tax cuts do).

off topic, but I dispute this. For one thing, it has not yet been tested. Note that the GOP has never actually had to filibuster anything. Rather, they threaten filibuster, and the Democratic leadership folds immediately.

Exactly.

I'm not a politician, but I bet the Republicans would have suffered great political damage if they had decided to filibuster the stimulus package.

Thanks for such a thoughtful response.

No, I don't agree. China, the example I pointed to for authoritarianism, passed the U.S. in global climate disaster contributions a year ago, and has shown something much stronger than disdain for the environment on front after front. So its ability to command has done nothing for combatting climate change.

I agree with your critique of China.

I'm not arguing for the Chinese leadership to take over global climate policy. What I'm arguing is that democracies like the US and Britain are currently incapable of responding to climate change (and peak oil) with the speed and urgency these issues require.

Our only hope is to set up a commission, or institution of some kind, with unprecedented authority to make sweeping changes, and make them largely free from the will of the people, who will simply vote for disaster.

That is not to say that all democracies everywhere can't be trusted to deal with problems like this. I can imagine a situation that would be different. I'm simply saying that the US (and Europe too), with its current voting population, will destroy the planet if given the chance. The people are not well enough educated on the issues, and there are too many well funded special interests with too much influence.

Of course, an authority that makes the wrong choices, such as China's politburo, will lead us to the same result. Authoritarianism per se is no solution. It would have to be an informed and benevolent authority.

One final point - I don't ever expect to see this happen. But if it could, then civilization might have a future.

I bring up the India analogy in part because of other fronts, however...

I'm in total agreement with what you said about India, their response to the Mumbai attack, etc.

One more thing I'd like to say. There are historical precedents for authoritarian governments "doing the right thing."

My first case study is the forestry management policies of the Tokugawa era Shoguns. The Japanese forests were being cut down at unsustainable rates to build new towns, palaces for the nobles, etc. The ruling elite recognized this problem in time, and instituted sustainable harvesting policies which not only saved the Japanese forests, but also saved Japanese society from the severe consequences that would have resulted from such resource destruction.

Finally, a weaker but more modern example is the Dominican Republic. Trujillo was a dictator from 1930 to 1961, but also protected the forests of the nation enough to save them from destruction. The Haitians, despite sharing the same island, were not so fortunate.

Again, I'm not arguing that authoritarianism is a good thing, intrinsically (I don't think it is). Rather, I think some measure of centralized power on energy and climate policy is our only hope to avoid a massive die off.

The essential element here is that the ruling authority recognized the problem in time and instituted policies.

Agreed.

Ignorance and its ability to prejudice people against science were the root cause of the failure.

Again, we're on the same page.

If we had a highly educated, scientifically literate population, then democratic institutions probably would be up to the challenge.

I'm saying folks in Europe and the US are simply not educated enough now, and will not learn in time, to depend on the democratic process to solve the major issues like peak oil, climate change, and environmental destruction. Our current trajectory leads inevitably to die-off.

However, there does exist a minority who do understand the problem. Letting that minority take charge is our one hope to survive the coming storm.

Of course, if an uneducated minority takes charge, then we're really in the soup.

So your point re: Krugman and and his objections to tax cuts is taken, but it seems we're both correct in that Krugman thinks that the plans thus have are (1) not large enough and (2) not properly targeted.

Yep. I only objected to the point in your original post where you claimed (if I remember correctly) nothing would have been better than what we're getting. Perhaps Stiglitz hold that opinion?

Now if Bernbart and yourself think that this economic stimulus plan is adequate

I can't speak for Bernbart, but I don't find it adequate. I agree with Krugman's take.

And this was the point I was trying to make to Bernbart: There's nothing pragmatic about a compromise that prevents you from achieving your goals.

Agreed!