4 ms·

"That article is so riddled with issues it's hard to take it seriously even if you believe the underlying conclusion." I consider this person to be one of the

"That article is so riddled with issues it's hard to take it seriously even if you believe the underlying conclusion." I consider this person to be one of the smartest persons I know. "This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can print money at will." This does not solve the underlying problem. You will get hyperinflation but the money is useless. https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-shrinkage-in-energy-supply-leads-to-conflict/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-... "The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750 because the industrial revolution and the green revolution wasn't a thing yet" We can only sustain this with modern technology that is developed by capitalism. Production is pre-financed in expectation of a higher return. If the growth model collapses, so will capitalism. Capitalism is not the same as a market economy. We had a market economy before capitalism. The point Gail makes is that a society without capitalism may fall to a technology level seen before the industrial revolution. A society like the Amish is basically stable in contrast to our model. "In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by Reuters, most agreed that getting to net zero would cost only 2% to 3% of annual global GDP." Which does not change the underlying mathematics. See also: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ "But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes. " And Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable https://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html https://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain knowledge. That article is riddled with basic errors. Steady-state economies can exist with debt—it’s how ancient non-imperial economies worked. Debt jubilees aren’t the only way to erase debt—we use bankruptcy, which is more targeted and continuous. As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It’s falling. (The author seems to conflate fossil fuels and energy.)
- Beijinger 3y ago
  "Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain knowledge." Do you know her background? "Steady-state economies can exist with debt—it’s how ancient non-imperial economies worked" Yes sure. An economy like the Amish can. But we talk here not about a market economy but about capitalism that basically starts with the industrial revolution. The giant pre-financing of production. "As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It’s falling." Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US? Sure. Do you know why? I actually read an article from a professor from a well known University (might have been MIT) that claimed the same. What he did not take into account is that the US has been outsourcing energy hungry production in the last decades. (The article appeared before the re-shoring of production in the US started). I send him a statistic showing, how the energy intensity of the US sank, while China's increased. I asked him if this contradicts his thesis. Unfortunately he did not reply. Here, Gail also mentions this: Why does world energy intensity remain flat, while energy intensity for many individual countries has been decreasing? We are dealing with a large number of countries with very different energy intensities. The big issue would seem to be outsourcing of heavy manufacturing. This makes the energy intensity of the country losing the manufacturing look better. Outsourcing transfers manufacturing to a country with a much higher energy intensity, so even with the new manufacturing, its ratio can still look better (lower). It is hard to measure the overall impact of outsourcing, except by looking at world total energy intensities rather than individual country amounts. https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-possible-to-decouple-gdp-growth-from-energy-growth/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-possible-...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > economy like the Amish can. But we talk here not about a market economy but about capitalism that basically starts with the industrial revolution. The giant pre-financing of production. What’s the difference? Steady state is steady state. Debt doesn’t require growth to be sustainable. It does require decay, but jubilees are a crude solution compared with bankruptcy. In any case, you see why the article is riddled with errors. Foundational arguments, like debt is incompatible with steady-state, have exceptions. And that is before we recognise that restructuring exists. > Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US? Of the world [1]. > while China's increased It’s been falling since 2006 [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity
gruez 3y ago
>I consider this person to be one of the smartest persons I know. Mind elaborating why anyone else should think the same? >"This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can print money at will." >This does not solve the underlying problem. You will get hyperinflation but the money is useless. Inflation is a spectrum. There's a vast range before you reach Zimbabwe/Venezuela levels of inflation, like the inflationary period we're seeing now in most developed countries. Reaching steady state and having slightly higher inflation isn't the worst thing in the world. >https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-shrinkage-in-energy-supply-leads-to-conflict/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-... How is this related to hyperinflation? >"The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750 because the industrial revolution and the green revolution wasn't a thing yet" >We can only sustain this with modern technology that is developed by capitalism. Production is pre-financed in expectation of a higher return. If the growth model collapses, so will capitalism. Capitalism is not the same as a market economy. We had a market economy before capitalism. The point Gail makes is that a society without capitalism may fall to a technology level seen before the industrial revolution. A society like the Amish is basically stable in contrast to our model. I don't get it, are you claiming that once we reached steady state, all of our technology will suddenly stop working and we'll go back to living like the Amish? It's unclear why advances like genetically modified crops, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizer will suddenly stop working if there isn't "pre-financed in expectation of a higher return". >"In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by Reuters, most agreed that getting to net zero would cost only 2% to 3% of annual global GDP." >Which does not change the underlying mathematics. See also: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ >"But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes. " I mean, if you extend your timescales arbitrarily far away you're going to be right eventually. After all, entropy and heat death of the universe is a thing. I don't think anyone seriously thinks we civilization can continue on for literally forever. Although I'm not sure what this does for the discussion about debt financing. Even without debt financing you're still going to run into heat death.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain knowledge. That article is riddled with basic errors. Steady-state economies can exist with debt—it’s how ancient non-imperial economies worked. Debt jubilees aren’t the only way to erase debt—we use bankruptcy, which is more targeted and continuous. As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It’s falling. (The author seems to conflate fossil fuels and energy.)

Beijinger 3y ago
"Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain knowledge." Do you know her background? "Steady-state economies can exist with debt—it’s how ancient non-imperial economies worked" Yes sure. An economy like the Amish can. But we talk here not about a market economy but about capitalism that basically starts with the industrial revolution. The giant pre-financing of production. "As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It’s falling." Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US? Sure. Do you know why? I actually read an article from a professor from a well known University (might have been MIT) that claimed the same. What he did not take into account is that the US has been outsourcing energy hungry production in the last decades. (The article appeared before the re-shoring of production in the US started). I send him a statistic showing, how the energy intensity of the US sank, while China's increased. I asked him if this contradicts his thesis. Unfortunately he did not reply. Here, Gail also mentions this: Why does world energy intensity remain flat, while energy intensity for many individual countries has been decreasing? We are dealing with a large number of countries with very different energy intensities. The big issue would seem to be outsourcing of heavy manufacturing. This makes the energy intensity of the country losing the manufacturing look better. Outsourcing transfers manufacturing to a country with a much higher energy intensity, so even with the new manufacturing, its ratio can still look better (lower). It is hard to measure the overall impact of outsourcing, except by looking at world total energy intensities rather than individual country amounts. https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-possible-to-decouple-gdp-growth-from-energy-growth/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-possible-...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > economy like the Amish can. But we talk here not about a market economy but about capitalism that basically starts with the industrial revolution. The giant pre-financing of production. What’s the difference? Steady state is steady state. Debt doesn’t require growth to be sustainable. It does require decay, but jubilees are a crude solution compared with bankruptcy. In any case, you see why the article is riddled with errors. Foundational arguments, like debt is incompatible with steady-state, have exceptions. And that is before we recognise that restructuring exists. > Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US? Of the world [1]. > while China's increased It’s been falling since 2006 [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity

gruez 3y ago

>I consider this person to be one of the smartest persons I know. Mind elaborating why anyone else should think the same? >"This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can print money at will." >This does not solve the underlying problem. You will get hyperinflation but the money is useless. Inflation is a spectrum. There's a vast range before you reach Zimbabwe/Venezuela levels of inflation, like the inflationary period we're seeing now in most developed countries. Reaching steady state and having slightly higher inflation isn't the worst thing in the world. >https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-shrinkage-in-energy-supply-leads-to-conflict/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-economy-... How is this related to hyperinflation? >"The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750 because the industrial revolution and the green revolution wasn't a thing yet" >We can only sustain this with modern technology that is developed by capitalism. Production is pre-financed in expectation of a higher return. If the growth model collapses, so will capitalism. Capitalism is not the same as a market economy. We had a market economy before capitalism. The point Gail makes is that a society without capitalism may fall to a technology level seen before the industrial revolution. A society like the Amish is basically stable in contrast to our model. I don't get it, are you claiming that once we reached steady state, all of our technology will suddenly stop working and we'll go back to living like the Amish? It's unclear why advances like genetically modified crops, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizer will suddenly stop working if there isn't "pre-financed in expectation of a higher return". >"In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by Reuters, most agreed that getting to net zero would cost only 2% to 3% of annual global GDP." >Which does not change the underlying mathematics. See also: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ >"But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes. " I mean, if you extend your timescales arbitrarily far away you're going to be right eventually. After all, entropy and heat death of the universe is a thing. I don't think anyone seriously thinks we civilization can continue on for literally forever. Although I'm not sure what this does for the discussion about debt financing. Even without debt financing you're still going to run into heat death.