3 ms·
"What’s the difference? Steady state is steady state. " From Gails article, capitalization from me: There is No Steady State Economy (EXCEPT AT A VERY BASIC LE
by Beijinger 3y ago
"What’s the difference? Steady state is steady state. "
From Gails article, capitalization from me:
There is No Steady State Economy (EXCEPT AT A VERY BASIC LEVEL)
So sure, a a steady state economy at a pre-industrialization level is no problem.
I am not able to spontaneously find data in your link for China, neither do I find my statistic since I am not at my desktop computer. But assuming you are right, what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> There is No Steady State Economy (EXCEPT AT A VERY BASIC LEVEL) This isn’t qualified for the debt statement. And again, it ignores restructuring. (As well as taxation and central banks’ arsenals for destroying money.) As for Jevon’s paradox, sure. Total energy use is increasing. But it’s increasing alongside efficiency. That makes steady state at a future point more achievable. We are nowhere close to tapping usable energy, so pre-optimising for it is silly. I like Gail’s writing, but this is a particularly bad article of hers. The problems it surfaces were largely addressed in the early 20th century, when the needs of industrialisation prompted monetary experimentation in the 19th century and yielded conclusions in the 20th. We have a debt-based fiat banking system because it works well for a positive-sum economy. There is also nothing inherent to it that requires growth; our need for growth comes from other parts of our economy, e.g. how we finance suburban infrastructure.