Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians | 214 comments (214 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 2)

... Look, resource constraints dont exist, as far as the economy is concerned. Putting a tonne of alluminum into a car does not remove it from the planet - atoms are infinitely recyclable, and we are nowhere in the vicinity of running out of energy - Bluntly, if you belive that solar/wind/ect energy can replace fossile fuels. And you do belive this, right? Then they can also fuel a much higher global level of energy use and (real) wealth.

The alternative is nonsensical - do you imagine that the world will succeed in replacing oil, coal and gas and then just go "Rather than pave over another 30 square kilometers of the Sahara desert, we are going to leave two billion africans in energy penury" ?

This is not a possible outcome. If renewables work, they will also work for a growing global economy at a minimum until the entire world reaches something recognizable as first world standards.

If renewables cannot deliver this result, then people who are dying at thirty due to lack of electricity will go with the 1960's tech that can, and we get a fast-breeder fission powered world.

Under no circumstances other than "We all die in global war" will the future be short on energy. And even that future will be short on energy because it is short on people, rather than due to any physical restraints.

by Thomas on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 09:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 0)

That is a different discussion.

I am not as convinced as you that fossil fuels will be replaced in their totality by other sources. Honestly I do not have an opinion on that: not convinced either-way. They might be a total replacement or they might only mitigate part of the problem, we will see.

I can only hope you are correct. But we will put the theory to the test around now.

by cagatacos on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 2)

Atoms are recyclable, and energy is conserved - yet there is a petty matter of fighting entropy. Without energy flows you can't put atoms in desired order, run internet and modern agriculture, support metabolism of the global economy.

And no, I do not think that renewables would save the planet activity as it is now. Some downsizing is bound to happen, as extraction of oil and aluminum will require more investments of the same energy. The only thing that might keep the bonanza going is a determined jump towards a type II civilization, perhaps.

by das monde on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:48:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 1)

That is not a politically possible outcome. either renewables can, in fact, do the job, or the power will be found elsewhere.
Places without reliable electricity are hellholes in which people die very young, and in droves. Nuclear fission exists. It is a technology which is understood. It is a very unpopular technology, but if all else fails, it will get used, and quite possibly used in very reckless ways (a molten salts reactor with no containment dome can be knocked together very cheaply.) because possibly dying of cancer at 60 beats the shit out of dying at 40 from lack of clean water, refrigiration, ect. Therefore, the future will have a sufficiency of electricity. That is certain. Where it is coming from is not yet known.

And with electricity, all else is possible.

by Thomas on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 03:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 5)

The difference between "enough electricity that people don't die" and "enough electricity for another doubling or two of economic activity" is not negligible.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 03:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 1)

What happens when political impossibility meets physical limits?

And what is political impossibility nowadays? Dishing Social Security was the the third rail of American politics - no politician with touch it. By now Social Security is about to be done. Is the austerity in Greece and Spain supposed to be politically possible? All you need is one set of stories for the political and media class, other stories for the vanishing middle class (those with high skills, still workable business, or financial fish), and a few stories for loosers. The process of gradual cut of resources from the bottom is clearly under way.

by das monde on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 09:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 2)

The point is that the physical limits are nowhere in the vicinity of where we currently are, because a: The energy flows extractable from incoming solar flux are collosal (renewables) and if that doesnt work out, nuclear fission is a thing that exists, and will get used in preference to running out of electricity.

Actually, lets put some numbers on this. National happiness correlates very strongly with gdp up until 15-20 k per capita - in order for the world to be above this point, at least one more doubling of incomes (eh, specifically, several doublings in the third world) is nessesary. Real Growth will certainly not be allowed to stop before this point, because that would imply collosal unnessesary suffering for ever. (the corrolation is probably what it is because those 15-20 k is what it takes to be reasonably assured that you will see your kids grow up and graduate highschool.)

Looking for more numbers (well, following links off wiki) it appears that wealth grants some returns to life satisfaction up until 70k /year. Assuming a very flat income distribution, that is 3 doublings of global gdp. It isnt 8 times current energy use because a lot of that represents low-energy use activities, but that is the point where a steady-state real economy could halt and not piss off everyone who wants a better life.

by Thomas on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 01:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 0)

Technically, it should be possible to extract another magnitude of energy flows from resources in sight indeed. However:

The dominant energy resource - oil - is about to decline. Oil offers such a bonanza of energy (in horse or slave powers) that replacing it is a serious challenge.
You need to invest energy and time to build infrastructure for alternative resources. Energy returns per energy invested are going to decline for oil in particular, and they are typically lower for alternatives.
You need to invest energy and time to innovate and organize. Energy balance predicaments are accelerating, and nothing guarantees that we would catch up just in time.
The global demand is just about the same as the global production. If the production would start to decline, the demand would be forced to decline.
It is surely possible to adjust the global demand, but any adaptation requires time and energy as well.
If some elites are perceiving the peak of this civilization cycle, they may be coming to Malthusian conclusions and taking according actions.
Economy, real estate and other markets surely impact human populations faster and much more directly than any ecological limit. That opens possibilities for decline or collapse management.

So the question is: is this economic crisis just a power grab of elites "as usual", or is there some preparation for a deep decline behind?

by das monde on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 02:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 1)

It is a power grab. This is blatantly obvious, because the causes have fuck all to do with the sectors of the economy that actually use energy and resources. Banks dont care what the cost of oil is, except if they can corner the market in it. We are being robbed by people, not by mother nature, and we will go on being robbed by people until we regulate the financial sector into oblivion. Or, you know, burn it down. Any narrative which tries to explain this crisis as the inevitable workings of globalization/history/nature/xxxxx should be regarded with extreme suspicion, because that narrative is the standard lie used by exploiters to cover the fact that they are fucking someone over. TINA is always a lie. No exceptions.

by Thomas on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 03:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (none / 0)

If you ask a random bond-collecting "job creator", he would acting for money grab merely, without much thinking about actual power, just assuming that more money will provide to his dynasty more comfort, security, etc., including more opportunities for power. He would not even pause of how the financial nanny system would continue to reward his progeny. Most of power holders (nominal or secretive) would be ignorant (frequently willfully) about energy flows as well, even if doing oil business.

However, I suspect that the elites are increasingly coordinated in their wealth power quest. The coordination center might be very small - a core of Bilderbergers, say. And if the coordination is driven by peak oil concerns, that is very significant.

by das monde on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 04:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Relevant (4.00 / 2)

The Energy Trap | Do the Math

In brief, the idea is that once we enter a decline phase in fossil fuel availability--first in petroleum--our growth-based economic system will struggle to cope with a contraction of its very lifeblood. Fuel prices will skyrocket, some individuals and exporting nations will react by hoarding, and energy scarcity will quickly become the new norm. The invisible hand of the market will slap us silly demanding a new energy infrastructure based on non-fossil solutions. But here's the rub. The construction of that shiny new infrastructure requires not just money, but...energy. And that's the very commodity in short supply. Will we really be willing to sacrifice additional energy in the short term--effectively steepening the decline--for a long-term energy plan? It's a trap!

Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter

by generic on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 03:36:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 4)

That series of events has nothing to do with resources, and everything to do with top down class warfare by finaciers and other rentiers either sociopatic, or conditioned by training to think of the economy as a zero sum game where they can only win if others loose.

by Thomas on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 01:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 4)

Blaming it on "resource constraints" not only misunderstands the situation, it gives the assholes currently destroying peoples lives by the millions political cover. Dont do this. TINA is a lie. TINA is always a lie.

by Thomas on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 01:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 2)

Yes, but what happens now shows that it is politically possible to deprive people of a lot. Including electricity I suspect, though I admit I have not followed if cutting the power for those that have not met all new tax obligations in Greece ever came into practise.

Thomas:

That is not a politically possible outcome. either renewables can, in fact, do the job, or the power will be found elsewhere.

is simply not true.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Jul 3rd, 2012 at 03:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians (4.00 / 5)

The basic equation of sustainability is:
sustainable + unsustainable = unsustainable

... which is to say, unless the energy supply, material supply, and waste disposal/recycling are all sustainable, the economy in question is not sustainable.

Te fact that there is sufficient sustainable energy supply to provide a sufficient energy budget to sustain an industrial economy does not imply that there is a sufficient sustainable energy supply to supply ongoing, unlimited exponential growth in energy consumption per capita.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 at 03:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians | 214 comments (214 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Simple Solar Principles

Rail News Blogging #24

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Recent Diaries

Pentecost steam

Simple Solar Principles

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Rail News Blogging #24

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

The Brussels Consensus: economic disaster in EU candidate...

Origins of German Neo-Austerianism

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Dionysian revels: Nice, May Day 2013:

Anglo Or Not, It's A Disease

The UK and the Euro

Free Energy: Solar and Dynamo LED Keychain Lights

Kruganomics 101

Gold

Corporate Profits and Aggregate Demand

VC Investment: Then and Now

An Ambush of Wishful thinking and Cargo Cult law.

The Intellectual Foundations of Austerity destroyed

Occasional Series