That is a really cool comment.

My half a quarter of one intercent's worth is...something Jerome mentioned a while back, to do with non-tangible items (non-resource-extracting items?) becoming a larger part of the economy--to the benefit of the planet.  It ties in with Migeru's comments (if I've understood them at all) with regard to Keynes: that you could bury money in bottles, get people to dig it up and: voila!  An economy.

First of all, the bottle example is straight out of Keynes, I'm just quoting. Second, I think the non-tangible part of the economy expands not for the benefit of the planet but for the benefit of employment. The benefit of the planet is a side effect, and is not being realised. However, the point stands that a steady state economy (in terms of resource use) need not be a stationary economy - the service sector in particular has infinite scope for growth and diversification regardless of resource use.


Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?