The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Ah! Here--something I said in the Daily Kos diary in reply to the point that an information econony doesn't use a lot of matter and energy]
The limiting case is probably "information worker"--people who get a living by moving pixels around. To do that takes some matter (the computers are made out of something) and energy (electricity, heat or AC, food), but the value added seems much larger than the physical inputs. Some people say that services are layered atop the traditional extractive, matter-and-energy work of the economy, which never went away in a real sense. We in the U.S. might tend to forget that, since many of the "smokestack" industries of yore have gone overseas; but we still depend on them. We use more steel than we did three decades ago, but we make way less steel than we did then. ... I wrote in reply to someone in the other diary that I linked to this one that an alternative way to view factors of production is to see them in these three categories: matter, energy, and intelligence. Certainly products (and services, like medical services) in which a high degree of learning/design/information/knowledge is embedded have a higher value-to-matter/energy ratio that stuff like, oh, iron ore. But just about everything partakes of all three. Growth in the intelligence/design/knowledge part of everything will let us save matter and energy, and let us achieve efficiencies that reduce (or slow the growth in) the ecological footprint of economic activity.
Some people say that services are layered atop the traditional extractive, matter-and-energy work of the economy, which never went away in a real sense. We in the U.S. might tend to forget that, since many of the "smokestack" industries of yore have gone overseas; but we still depend on them. We use more steel than we did three decades ago, but we make way less steel than we did then.
...
I wrote in reply to someone in the other diary that I linked to this one that an alternative way to view factors of production is to see them in these three categories: matter, energy, and intelligence. Certainly products (and services, like medical services) in which a high degree of learning/design/information/knowledge is embedded have a higher value-to-matter/energy ratio that stuff like, oh, iron ore. But just about everything partakes of all three. Growth in the intelligence/design/knowledge part of everything will let us save matter and energy, and let us achieve efficiencies that reduce (or slow the growth in) the ecological footprint of economic activity.
Henry George, airbrushed from history: yes. Interesting that he was advocating a single tax on land, as the prime productive asset. Land is the great net by which we capture current solar income, which (eventually, I believe) we will have to learn to live within. And some people advocate a single tax on low entropy, or on carbon: get rid of the income tax and tax the thing that leads to externalities, the extraction of valuable matter and energy from nature. Industrial society is not sustainable. Unsustainable systems change--or disappear.
by Oui - Dec 9 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 5 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 97 comments
by Oui - Dec 820 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 510 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 186 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments