Structural vs Stimulus | 82 comments (82 topical, 0 hidden)
The distinction may be somewhat moot (none / 0)
At least regarding "economics". In any conventional sense, to all intents and purposes growth is over.

Achieving contraction with economic justice, if that proves possible, is another matter.

by Landbeyond on 09/04/2010 12:57:06 PM EST

One question: (none / 0)
In what unit do you and Richard Heinberg measure economic growth?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/04/2010 02:08:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not here (none / 0)
We still have plenty of room to grow. However, growth can also be done in the form of technology and the ability to move goods, ideas and energy, as well as produce them.
I would suggest sociopath-economics. Men are inherently evil and self serving, when given access to money and power. The problem with economic models is that modelers like Greenspan, Bernanke, Freedman and Rand fail to recognize the boundary conditions. All models have boundary conditions of some sort. In economics, it’s human behavior.

"See?  The Market can do no wrong.  To some, this sounded a bit like the circularly-reasoned response of a medieval priest to doubts about the infallibility of scripture.  Nevertheless, despite its blind spots, classical economics proved useful in making sense of the messy details of money and markets."

The author falls into several common traps. The reason our economy exploded after WWII was that we were the only industrial country that had not been leveled. JMK has been bastardized.   Keynes never suggested giving unlimited amounts of money to the banks and Wall Street for speculation. Keynes suggested keeping people working and making money available for rebuilding industry.

We have done neither.

by sisco66 on 09/04/2010 09:14:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Basic disagreement (none / 1)
    "The reason our economy exploded after WWII was that we were the only industrial country that had not been leveled."

Plus it still had access to large amounts of cheap, non-renewable energy. And the potential to develop access to large quantities of renewable energy sufficient for the appropriate kind and size of economy. Both the energy and the potential were wasted.

Economies don't run on money. Technology is useless without energy. Nothing moves without energy. The economy needs more and more energy. It doesn't have it, and before long it will have less and less. If you don't believe that, we can only wait and see.

Economics is a creation of humans: it's fluid. Physics is unyielding.

Having evil and self-serving men running things has bad consequences, but it isn't, now, the basic problem.

by Landbeyond on 09/05/2010 03:29:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
all the tech (none / 0)
is there to convert to a green energy high efficiency economy while creating jobs along the way. It's just a matter of will.

by sisco66 on 09/05/2010 05:03:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If wishes were horses... (none / 0)
A lot of the tech, little of the will, and progressively less of the energy, especially affordable oil for importing.

To transition to "a green energy high efficiency economy" will require enormous quantities of fossil fuels and other resources, the cost of which, especially oil, will shoot up if the world economy starts to recover.

World oil output has peaked/plateaued and will soon start to decline. That's a fact. The US depends on oil imports just to maintain its present energy setup, let alone converting to a new one. That's a fact. It's a downer, I know; but facts are stubborn things (where have I heard that?).

You can check the facts for yourself, or you can just refuse to believe them. The rulers would prefer the latter; that you have your eyes on better times ahead while they continue their increasingly blatant looting.

    "…all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously. The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future,"
    – Dr Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, c. July 2009

by Landbeyond on 09/06/2010 07:04:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
too over the top (none / 0)
While a agree with your concern, it's just too much of a defeatist postion.  Will is our biggest short fall.

by sisco66 on 09/06/2010 08:46:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand (none / 0)
Will is essential for achieving all that is physically possible. Of course, what I sketched out above is not my position, but rather that of many sober, hard-headed, bona fide experts in various fields, including the military, geology and the oil industry. It rests on a wealth of research and numerous studies, both private and government-sponsored.

There's no lack of debate in the energy field, especially about what the future holds, but it is anchored in the sciences and mathematics, rather than economics. It's about what is true and what is not true of the physical world, and its leading participants tend to be as objective as can reasonably be expected of human beings.

But this is a notoriously touchy subject, and I've already inadvertently offended one person on this thread, so I can only reiterate that the essential facts are not hard to check for anyone who cares to look.

Meanwhile, here's hoping you're right and it's all potentially fixable.

by Landbeyond on 09/07/2010 05:13:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
experts...... (none / 0)
on very narrow subjects too often become trapped by their own specialties. The old can't see the forest through the trees....

I am running half of my oversized poorly insulated house on a small solar array.  Solar is only 30 years behind it's sister chips. There is so much room for advancement and job creation in this field alone.  Nano technology is going to be a game changer in for solar, not to mention mass production by chip makers.

by sisco66 on 09/07/2010 10:34:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Structural vs Stimulus | 82 comments (82 topical, 0 hidden)