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.
As long as they were (re)building, there was investment opportunities excess of maintenance and whatever upgrades were offered by technological progress.
Once the empire reached its maximum extent, growth could only happen as a consequence of technical innovation. And so both the volume of investment opportunities fell, and the share of investment going into maintenance rather than new growth increased.
The game changed from being revenue creation to being revenue capture.
Politically, this happened to happen at the same time peak US continental oil shifted the Texas oil companies from the "full employment" camp to the "deregulation" camp.
And the rest is history.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
The bottom line problem is that we need to downsize the financial sector. The effect of its operations are to impose the private sector equivalent of a VAT, likely over 20%, on a huge range of activities - any thing it touches. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I think my questions are:
a) What's stopping investments outside the empire? (Lots of building still needed across the world.)
b) Your post implies that the whole set of economic theories basically only works while you have an expanding empire. After that the rate of growth limited by productivity isn't a zero-sum game, but very close to being so?
Your point b is something I have always believed... Club of Rome and all that... It's about time it became fashionable.
Indeed, it seems intuitively obvious that high rates of return on capital are only possible in a growing economy. So the risk-averse capital is not, in the aggregate, going to get a good rate of return. In the long term, perhaps investors will adjust their expectations to moderate, sustainable returns. In the meantime, with a huge amount of productive capacity idle, we've got a capital strike on our hands.
Government intervention seems the only rational possibility. But that would require rational government. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
it seems intuitively obvious that high rates of return on capital are only possible in a growing economy
Which leads us to consider the prodigious rise of the financial sector. Which compensates for lack of growth by whipping up high rates of return based on the capture of future flows.
No growth now? Mine the future!
Where now for capital? To the moooon? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
What's stopping investments outside the empire?
"Outside the empire" means "outside a legal framework which I can use to obtain recourse against people who default on our business dealings."
Because the ability to reliably obtain recourse against people who default on your business dealings is a pretty good working definition of the difference between "inside" and "outside" the empire.
(Lots of building still needed across the world.)
Just like, in the expanding empire, producers gain power from exploiting previously unclaimed (by stakeholders internal to the empire) economic niches, and then change the rules to favor producers, which opens up even more previously unclaimed niches to exploitation.
Your post implies that the whole set of economic theories basically only works while you have an expanding empire.
Growing empires attempt to explain their world, in order to better realize opportunities, since power resides with those who have a vested interest in opportunities being realized. NB: This is not necessarily (or even typically) the same group of people as the ones who do the actual work of realizing the opportunities.
Stagnant empires invent excuses for looting.
An economic theory which "works," in the sense of providing actionable explanations for what drives economic activity, is actively contrary to the interests of those who guide the direction of a stagnant empire.
After that the rate of growth limited by productivity isn't a zero-sum game, but very close to being so?
But relative to the expanding empire? Absolutely.
Only relative to the Jumbo-burger profits they are used to.
The world could hum along happily at 4% ROI, and say inflation at 2%, but once you've seen Pareee... (Once you've tried the hard stuff). 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
"History" features notably:
There is a mix of policies for governing international trade and tribute. And there is a number of technologies to mediate international trade and tribute.
But the policy mix governing international trade and tribute is not in any important way interdependent, nor dependent in any straightforward way on the technology involved.
"Financialization" is just a polysyllabic euphemism for "looting."
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 810 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 162 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 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments