Nate, the best interview of Herman Daly I've heard. This was my own experience. It was obvious at Citbank International in the 1980s that we were on a road to ecological hell for life on the planet. Equations and policies that took no account whatsoever of people or planet, almost everything was an externality while wealth accretion took centre stage. Like you I worked in the thick of it. Herman was a trail blazer and lived a life full of purpose and meaning. Thanks again Nate for this interview.
Another excellent discussion between two great intellects. I was not familiar with Herman Daly's work prior to listening to this but intend to read the books referred to here. Hagens is a brilliant interviewer. He has an unusual acuity when questioning his guests: and almost invariably gets to the heart of the matter. More importantly he asks the questions which, to me, are the critical and fundamental ones. It is so refreshing to listen to two experts who have both arrived at unavoidable, uncomfortable conclusions and have been brave enough to openly question prevailing political orthodoxies.
This conversation has changed my life. 32 years young, my passion in this MOST EPIC 8% Generation has now been discovered: Environmental Economics. Herman said it best: this is kindergarten stuff! Thanks Nate, let the simplification begin.
And to have looked into these issues with such depth and understanding so many years ago, and to be ignored by colleagues in the profession who just want to carry on "business as usual" and make their nest egg to the detriment of life on earth.
Great podcast! Right on the money - you might say. Our obsession with economic growth and arguably more accurately, the growth of individual wealth and the vested interests of those who own the wealth, stands front and centre in the way of transforming our economies to focus on what really matters - energy and material availability and use and wellbeing of people and the planet. Sadly our leaders are blinded by their greed for money and power and people are blinded because those same leaders and their wealthy funders also control the mass media. This podcast and others like it will hopefully open more and more eyes. I look forward o the great simplification becoming reality. Thanks.
It always amazes me how many extremely intelligent people exist in mid-level positions in government and industry, and how little attention gets paid to their insights and concerns by the powers that be. The maxim that "structure dictates behaviour" seems to bear out again and again, and I might as well add the other "law" that seems relevant here: "Crisis precipitates change." Thank you Nate for this. I am absolutely not an economist, and would round them all up and put them in a shabby 1 star all-inclusive resort on the edge of a swamp somewhere if I had my way, but I recognize the power they have in the world today and appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to the profession.
Hagens' inside out knowledge and progression of the subject makes for an uncanny ease as he interviews the revolutionary ecological economist, Herman Daly.
Great conversation. I came across you due to Dr. Mike Joy from New Zealand. He also promotes your degrowth - valuing our ecosystem and linking the worlds issues with excessive consumption. Thanks for your work.
I am delighted that you are doing this. One podcast kicked off the podium with you in bronze at the moment. I'm enjoying how your sane pace and insight bring out the best in your already stellar guests.
Great podcast, please keep up your work on describing our predicament. I learned about your work from Daniel Schmactenberger. Also thanks for making your book Reality Blind free to the public. Also what advice would you give to someone in college trying to decide what to study/what life trajectories do your Reality 101 alumni take? I was going to go into k12 education to teach and potentially develop a "Reality 101" curriculum adapted to high schoolers that could be aligned to Next Generation Science Standards, but after looking at how change averse the education system has been I'm starting to give up hope on this pursuit, especially given how a few upset parents can kill a school initiative and that learning this stuff is upsetting.
Hey Raaj!! I'm one of Nate's former student and in my last year of college - we took his past seminars and have modified it into a peer-led experience...I would encourage you not to give up on education and mentoring, there are so many ways to teach outside of the K12 system and it's CRITICAL to build alternative "classrooms" for the future. We (peers and I) already have, inside and outside of school. And I wrote a children's book for Nate's final paper assignment haha. Feel free to reach out if you want to chat more on navigating higher Ed + edu models. All the best
@@priscillatrinh6679 Hey Priscilla thanks for the reply. I hope your children's book went well, it sounds like a great idea! Could you elaborate on what you mean by alternative classrooms and the sort of work your peers have done? After doing some research I'm going to be sticking with education. Also in my search I've found some resources/potential allies that you and your peers may find useful. You should check out the Institute for Humane Education, they focus on educating young people not only in the complex issues that make up our world but also educating them on how to solve issues. What's especially promising is their focus on looking at problems through a "solutionary lens," which to them means 1) looking at problems not through a narrow lens but through interconnected systems thinking (much like Nate's work), 2) focusing on root causes of issues, and 3) creating solutions that don't externalize harm and assessing for potential negative downstream effects (they call this philosophy "MOGO" or "most good, least harm" solutions). They also have come up with some great learning resources, such as their "true price" game, which asks students to trace an everyday product through the supply chain to explore how it's made and the externalities that occur humaneeducation.org/resources/2013/true-price/. Another is a lesson plan that integrates modern agriculture with nitrogen runoff and ocean dead zones and has students investigate things like organic, sustainable agriculture humaneeducation.org/resources/2016/primary-death-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-a-solutionary-unit/?fbclid=IwAR2GQNvIs_AyJgIVdoj_C-rgC1DBDSm3GWxQISaRUnjAgalnPta4TeQIkCw. I will say that the organization might be "energy blind" as I've seen the leader of the org in a ted talk jokingly hope that humanity's long term future resembles Star Trek.
@@raajaggarwal7777 hey raaj I've checked that website and it's sounds promising ,do you reside in india? Well I do and I feel this kind of stuff and thinking is very less in my country , it seems difficult to apply such concepts into India , what are your thoughts ? Have you applied it ?
@@raajaggarwal7777 I'm teaching a high school Sustainability course and I'm definitely going to look at this - don't give up on education, we need people like you!
I never thought I would be interested in economics. I'm an artist that got side tracked Into philosophy For quite a few years while I was figuring things out. I got lucky and ran into process thought. But following my nose through Whitehead, john Cobb, And others, I ended up here. I didn't know that there was an economics that addresses real life. I've started reading "for the common good."
I marvel at your in-depth focus on many different parameters of the economic equation, yet GREED never seems to be one of them. And yet, ultimately, it is the cumulative greed of those who possess the capacity FOR it, that is gradually destroying everything. A poker game comes to an abrupt halt when one or two players wins all the chips. It seems like that is the direction of our cumulative economic endeavor.
A barrel of seeds will produce a lot more than a barrel of oil. The military is by far the world's most costly industry. The reason for scarcity is entirely in our thinking.
I saw Kiss the Earth on Netflix a few hours after I wrote this. It's a wonderful thing what all the people who are making this idea a reality are doing. I'm always saying, the greatest people in history aren't the ones who come up with the greatest ideas but are the ones who bring them into the world. 🙏
How does a barrel of seeds come to the production of a crop today without oil. In our fossil fuel driven economy a barrel of seeds without, expensive oil, is, as Nate would say, a statue.
Hi! Great podcast. Sugestion, what about a podcast with some ecopsychologist? Your Style of podcast and interviewing I believe would really suit the topic!
Nate, the issue is, after reading into economics since the late 1970s, and reading Dr. Daly for decades, humand cognition is an evolutionary dead-end. Looking around in a clear-eyed manner, it can be no other way. Although, it could be another way, but we, that is humanity, does not "what" it to be. The WANTS are the problem. Michael Bain, MBA
Nate, can a 'steady state' economy properly be called a capitalist economy? It certainly seems to me that the current (late stage) form of capitalism would be entirely incompatible with an economic system without debt, interest demands and which therefore was not dependent on growth.
I don't know what makes people think there would be no debts or interest. Capitalism (using surplus wealth, either one's own or borrowed, to generate more wealth) has been around for thousands of years, going back at least to the ancient Sumerians, and for most of that time it has coexisted with a near steady state economy.
From an energy point of view a (very) hard working human puts out about 100 watts. It’s only a true athlete that can maintain the pace. A 100 watt solar panel costs maybe $100 (actually now $22 at the cell level). It makes power as long as the sun shines and some are guaranteed to last 30 years. We live in an age of miracles! Electrification brings light, power, information, transportation. The very latest batteries are made from salt and dirt. What’s wrong with us? If we just stopped poisoning ourselves with excess and start living decently our ancestors would be made proud and our future bright.
Daly's comments about the inevitability of waste and pollution as results of the modern industrial economy called to mind the 1991 Summers memo (which was supposedly actually written by his underling Lant Pritchett): ====== DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP 'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. 2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable. The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. - Lawrence Summers,
@@thegreatsimplification yea. Not sure how much traction it has as a movement, but. It is what it sounds like - trying to use law to stop the creation of goods that employ planned obsolesence and sh!t design to force consumers to buy new products (or force them to use company mechanics). The goal is to de-encentivize short term use items (which seems to encompass most consumer goods at this point ...) in favor of longer lasting items, and items which can be repaired instead of thrown away. Might be kind of a baby step in terms of the change you envision, but as I like to tell myself when I bike to work - every bit helps.
Right-to-repair has enough traction as an idea to have already become law in places, and to be actively discussed in many. It flows naturally from liberalism and property rights and fits neatly into consumer protection.
46:00 Unfortunately society doesn’t understand why fuels are becoming more expensive nor why they are losing rebates. ruclips.net/video/9vL-RvOk4ag/видео.html
ALL of humanity is being driven to extinction because of the coagulated wealth and the attendant power that wealth provides. We are a captive audience, the equivalent of the steerage passengers on the Titanic. As the captain and crew confidently steam forward, and as the 1st Class passengers revel in the grand salon, EVERYONE is headed for ultimate disaster.
As a poor man, it truly seems to me that you are addressing the economic situation from a very effete "comfortable" level of assessment, and discounting or ignoring the ramifications on the growing number of people of lesser means. Is that the future? Is the viability of millions and millions of people being deemed merely an unfortunate "externality" of the near future?
What are we going to do after it crashes? Sounds like we'll have Mad Max if we're lucky. Guy McPherson says we're going to be get runaway climate change by 2030. No I don't agree with you less is just so easy. I grew up in an affluent home. In Israel i have a fraction of what I had in America. That's mostly due to economic discrimination against immigrants. But nevertheless going down a lot in living standards fucking sucks.
These talks are interesting but if the intent is for the layman to understand you guys are not doing a good job. You guys constantly talk about abstruse concepts that only insiders would understand, like Cobbs Douglas, idk what that is. I can Google it. That's not the point, if I want to try hard to understand complicated economic theories, I could just read an economics textbook. I watch RUclips videos like this because I don't want to read an economics textbook.
It’s a challenge. This isn’t really for general public. I’m sending signal to those who will listen. Total amateur and so far have just mostly talked to my friends/colleagues. But thanks for feedback
@@thegreatsimplification thanks. If I understand your world view, simply as possible..We've hit peak oil. As a result something like the Great Depression is coming, only nothing can solve it this time, because the energy needed to restart the economy simply won't exist. This is regardless of climate change. Finance is irrelevant in revving up the economy again, because it's really just an expression of future oil that doesn't exist, which in any case has been getting less bang for it's buck since the 70s. And this conclusion is based on data that economists don't even consider relevant. Which is pretty similar to the book I just read by Peter Zeihan, a pro business libertarian, only he blames the situation on the crash of the baby boomer population and lack of US will to maintain global trade through global naval presence. Of course if you listen to what leftist intellectuals are saying, matt Stoller, Michael Hudson, of course productivity on return is going down since the 70s, because the Reagan revolution reorganized capital into finance, not productivity. So how would you know your data of diminishing returns on investment, isn't actually reflecting this instead? Matt Stoller just wrote an article the department of defense has been paying $70+ for $1 pin due to corruption in policies of procurement. Of course return is going down. But it seems you're saying human technology is reaching the limits of what's capable without a higher energy source, and the Petro dollars needed to fund new research are disappearing.
@@bryandovbergman5654 Over time, the per capita income tends to increase when per capita production (=productivity) increases. What makes productivity rise? Not money, or we would just print money and that would be enough to cause workers to produce more. The bottom line is that production requires work. What drives increases in work done? Energy, because energy is by definition "the ability to do work." There are two ways to increase one's production with energy. You can do that by increasing efficiency (using the same amount of energy more effectively), but this is usually just a marginal contribution. The other way is by applying more energy. In the past, most energy came from food calories to fuel human or animal muscle. Then England started increasing its use of coal at a rapid rate in the 16th century. This was like finding buried treasure. Most of our innovations that economists use to explain economic growth merely consisted of finding new ways to put that buried treasure (energy embedded in ancient buried plants) to work. As long as a large energy surplus exists, you can increase per capita production (increased income or GDP per person) by adopting the right tax, trade, and regulatory policies and different economic schools debate just which set of policies is best. But once the energy flows start getting smaller, less energy per capita (=less of "the ability to do work") will result in less work done per person in the population and therefore fewer goods and services produced per person. Policy optimization cannot fix that problem. Production requires work and work requires energy. More energy per person=more work per person=more output per person. And less energy, then less work, and thus less output. Basic physical science. If economists really want to model their discipline on physics, then here's their chance.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
Nate, the best interview of Herman Daly I've heard. This was my own experience. It was obvious at Citbank International in the 1980s that we were on a road to ecological hell for life on the planet. Equations and policies that took no account whatsoever of people or planet, almost everything was an externality while wealth accretion took centre stage. Like you I worked in the thick of it. Herman was a trail blazer and lived a life full of purpose and meaning. Thanks again Nate for this interview.
Another excellent discussion between two great intellects. I was not familiar with Herman Daly's work prior to listening to this but intend to read the books referred to here. Hagens is a brilliant interviewer. He has an unusual acuity when questioning his guests: and almost invariably gets to the heart of the matter. More importantly he asks the questions which, to me, are the critical and fundamental ones. It is so refreshing to listen to two experts who have both arrived at unavoidable, uncomfortable conclusions and have been brave enough to openly question prevailing political orthodoxies.
This conversation has changed my life. 32 years young, my passion in this MOST EPIC 8% Generation has now been discovered: Environmental Economics. Herman said it best: this is kindergarten stuff! Thanks Nate, let the simplification begin.
Herman is 83 years old and sharp as a tack. Great interview.
And to have looked into these issues with such depth and understanding so many years ago, and to be ignored by colleagues in the profession who just want to carry on "business as usual" and make their nest egg to the detriment of life on earth.
Great podcast! Right on the money - you might say. Our obsession with economic growth and arguably more accurately, the growth of individual wealth and the vested interests of those who own the wealth, stands front and centre in the way of transforming our economies to focus on what really matters - energy and material availability and use and wellbeing of people and the planet. Sadly our leaders are blinded by their greed for money and power and people are blinded because those same leaders and their wealthy funders also control the mass media. This podcast and others like it will hopefully open more and more eyes. I look forward o the great simplification becoming reality. Thanks.
It always amazes me how many extremely intelligent people exist in mid-level positions in government and industry, and how little attention gets paid to their insights and concerns by the powers that be. The maxim that "structure dictates behaviour" seems to bear out again and again, and I might as well add the other "law" that seems relevant here: "Crisis precipitates change." Thank you Nate for this. I am absolutely not an economist, and would round them all up and put them in a shabby 1 star all-inclusive resort on the edge of a swamp somewhere if I had my way, but I recognize the power they have in the world today and appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to the profession.
Hagens' inside out knowledge and progression of the subject makes for an uncanny ease as he interviews the revolutionary ecological economist, Herman Daly.
Another incredibly insightful conversation!
Great conversation. I came across you due to Dr. Mike Joy from New Zealand. He also promotes your degrowth - valuing our ecosystem and linking the worlds issues with excessive consumption. Thanks for your work.
I am delighted that you are doing this. One podcast kicked off the podium with you in bronze at the moment. I'm enjoying how your sane pace and insight bring out the best in your already stellar guests.
God bless you and your work indeed, Nate.
Excellent...greetings from Chile!
Great podcast, please keep up your work on describing our predicament. I learned about your work from Daniel Schmactenberger. Also thanks for making your book Reality Blind free to the public. Also what advice would you give to someone in college trying to decide what to study/what life trajectories do your Reality 101 alumni take? I was going to go into k12 education to teach and potentially develop a "Reality 101" curriculum adapted to high schoolers that could be aligned to Next Generation Science Standards, but after looking at how change averse the education system has been I'm starting to give up hope on this pursuit, especially given how a few upset parents can kill a school initiative and that learning this stuff is upsetting.
Hey Raaj!! I'm one of Nate's former student and in my last year of college - we took his past seminars and have modified it into a peer-led experience...I would encourage you not to give up on education and mentoring, there are so many ways to teach outside of the K12 system and it's CRITICAL to build alternative "classrooms" for the future. We (peers and I) already have, inside and outside of school. And I wrote a children's book for Nate's final paper assignment haha. Feel free to reach out if you want to chat more on navigating higher Ed + edu models. All the best
@@priscillatrinh6679 Hey Priscilla thanks for the reply. I hope your children's book went well, it sounds like a great idea! Could you elaborate on what you mean by alternative classrooms and the sort of work your peers have done? After doing some research I'm going to be sticking with education.
Also in my search I've found some resources/potential allies that you and your peers may find useful. You should check out the Institute for Humane Education, they focus on educating young people not only in the complex issues that make up our world but also educating them on how to solve issues. What's especially promising is their focus on looking at problems through a "solutionary lens," which to them means 1) looking at problems not through a narrow lens but through interconnected systems thinking (much like Nate's work), 2) focusing on root causes of issues, and 3) creating solutions that don't externalize harm and assessing for potential negative downstream effects (they call this philosophy "MOGO" or "most good, least harm" solutions). They also have come up with some great learning resources, such as their "true price" game, which asks students to trace an everyday product through the supply chain to explore how it's made and the externalities that occur humaneeducation.org/resources/2013/true-price/. Another is a lesson plan that integrates modern agriculture with nitrogen runoff and ocean dead zones and has students investigate things like organic, sustainable agriculture humaneeducation.org/resources/2016/primary-death-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-a-solutionary-unit/?fbclid=IwAR2GQNvIs_AyJgIVdoj_C-rgC1DBDSm3GWxQISaRUnjAgalnPta4TeQIkCw. I will say that the organization might be "energy blind" as I've seen the leader of the org in a ted talk jokingly hope that humanity's long term future resembles Star Trek.
@@raajaggarwal7777 hey raaj I've checked that website and it's sounds promising ,do you reside in india? Well I do and I feel this kind of stuff and thinking is very less in my country , it seems difficult to apply such concepts into India , what are your thoughts ? Have you applied it ?
@@raajaggarwal7777 I'm teaching a high school Sustainability course and I'm definitely going to look at this - don't give up on education, we need people like you!
I never thought I would be interested in economics. I'm an artist that got side tracked Into philosophy For quite a few years while I was figuring things out. I got lucky and ran into process thought. But following my
nose through Whitehead, john Cobb, And others, I ended up here. I didn't know that there was an economics that addresses real life. I've started reading "for the common good."
I marvel at your in-depth focus on many different parameters of the economic equation, yet GREED never seems to be one of them. And yet, ultimately, it is the cumulative greed of those who possess the capacity FOR it, that is gradually destroying everything. A poker game comes to an abrupt halt when one or two players wins all the chips. It seems like that is the direction of our cumulative economic endeavor.
A barrel of seeds will produce a lot more than a barrel of oil. The military is by far the world's most costly industry. The reason for scarcity is entirely in our thinking.
I saw Kiss the Earth on Netflix a few hours after I wrote this. It's a wonderful thing what all the people who are making this idea a reality are doing. I'm always saying, the greatest people in history aren't the ones who come up with the greatest ideas but are the ones who bring them into the world. 🙏
How does a barrel of seeds come to the production of a crop today without oil. In our fossil fuel driven economy a barrel of seeds without, expensive oil, is, as Nate would say, a statue.
God❤Almighty bless🙏 us all so that we can avert nuclear☢️ and ecological catastrophes😢! Thank you❤🌹🙏 Herman Daly and Nate!
Hi! Great podcast.
Sugestion, what about a podcast with some ecopsychologist?
Your Style of podcast and interviewing I believe would really suit the topic!
Nate, the issue is, after reading into economics since the late 1970s, and reading Dr. Daly for decades, humand cognition is an evolutionary dead-end.
Looking around in a clear-eyed manner, it can be no other way.
Although, it could be another way, but we, that is humanity, does not "what" it to be.
The WANTS are the problem.
Michael Bain, MBA
Nate, can a 'steady state' economy properly be called a capitalist economy? It certainly seems to me that the current (late stage) form of capitalism would be entirely incompatible with an economic system without debt, interest demands and which therefore was not dependent on growth.
I don't know what makes people think there would be no debts or interest. Capitalism (using surplus wealth, either one's own or borrowed, to generate more wealth) has been around for thousands of years, going back at least to the ancient Sumerians, and for most of that time it has coexisted with a near steady state economy.
👍
From an energy point of view a (very) hard working human puts out about 100 watts. It’s only a true athlete that can maintain the pace. A 100 watt solar panel costs maybe $100 (actually now $22 at the cell level). It makes power as long as the sun shines and some are guaranteed to last 30 years. We live in an age of miracles! Electrification brings light, power, information, transportation. The very latest batteries are made from salt and dirt.
What’s wrong with us? If we just stopped poisoning ourselves with excess and start living decently our ancestors would be made proud and our future bright.
Don’t y’all think it’s the economic system that’s out of control?
Daly's comments about the inevitability of waste and pollution as results of the modern industrial economy called to mind the 1991 Summers memo (which was supposedly actually written by his underling Lant Pritchett):
======
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
- Lawrence Summers,
Nate - have you looked into the right to repair? I think that might be a political idea that can help society pivot in the direction your describing.
right to repair??
@@thegreatsimplification yea. Not sure how much traction it has as a movement, but. It is what it sounds like - trying to use law to stop the creation of goods that employ planned obsolesence and sh!t design to force consumers to buy new products (or force them to use company mechanics). The goal is to de-encentivize short term use items (which seems to encompass most consumer goods at this point ...) in favor of longer lasting items, and items which can be repaired instead of thrown away. Might be kind of a baby step in terms of the change you envision, but as I like to tell myself when I bike to work - every bit helps.
Right-to-repair has enough traction as an idea to have already become law in places, and to be actively discussed in many. It flows naturally from liberalism and property rights and fits neatly into consumer protection.
46:00 Unfortunately society doesn’t understand why fuels are becoming more expensive nor why they are losing rebates. ruclips.net/video/9vL-RvOk4ag/видео.html
ALL of humanity is being driven to extinction because of the coagulated wealth and the attendant power that wealth provides. We are a captive audience, the equivalent of the steerage passengers on the Titanic. As the captain and crew confidently steam forward, and as the 1st Class passengers revel in the grand salon, EVERYONE is headed for ultimate disaster.
Re the last Daly comments, if you are uncertian on how to proceed, go dig your own grave.
As a poor man, it truly seems to me that you are addressing the economic situation from a very effete "comfortable" level of assessment, and discounting or ignoring the ramifications on the growing number of people of lesser means. Is that the future? Is the viability of millions and millions of people being deemed merely an unfortunate "externality" of the near future?
What are we going to do after it crashes? Sounds like we'll have Mad Max if we're lucky. Guy McPherson says we're going to be get runaway climate change by 2030. No I don't agree with you less is just so easy. I grew up in an affluent home. In Israel i have a fraction of what I had in America. That's mostly due to economic discrimination against immigrants. But nevertheless going down a lot in living standards fucking sucks.
These talks are interesting but if the intent is for the layman to understand you guys are not doing a good job. You guys constantly talk about abstruse concepts that only insiders would understand, like Cobbs Douglas, idk what that is. I can Google it. That's not the point, if I want to try hard to understand complicated economic theories, I could just read an economics textbook. I watch RUclips videos like this because I don't want to read an economics textbook.
It’s a challenge. This isn’t really for general public. I’m sending signal to those who will listen. Total amateur and so far have just mostly talked to my friends/colleagues. But thanks for feedback
Also there are notes/references for every episode on the main site
@@thegreatsimplification thanks. If I understand your world view, simply as possible..We've hit peak oil. As a result something like the Great Depression is coming, only nothing can solve it this time, because the energy needed to restart the economy simply won't exist. This is regardless of climate change. Finance is irrelevant in revving up the economy again, because it's really just an expression of future oil that doesn't exist, which in any case has been getting less bang for it's buck since the 70s. And this conclusion is based on data that economists don't even consider relevant. Which is pretty similar to the book I just read by Peter Zeihan, a pro business libertarian, only he blames the situation on the crash of the baby boomer population and lack of US will to maintain global trade through global naval presence. Of course if you listen to what leftist intellectuals are saying, matt Stoller, Michael Hudson, of course productivity on return is going down since the 70s, because the Reagan revolution reorganized capital into finance, not productivity. So how would you know your data of diminishing returns on investment, isn't actually reflecting this instead? Matt Stoller just wrote an article the department of defense has been paying $70+ for $1 pin due to corruption in policies of procurement. Of course return is going down. But it seems you're saying human technology is reaching the limits of what's capable without a higher energy source, and the Petro dollars needed to fund new research are disappearing.
@@bryandovbergman5654 Over time, the per capita income tends to increase when per capita production (=productivity) increases. What makes productivity rise? Not money, or we would just print money and that would be enough to cause workers to produce more. The bottom line is that production requires work. What drives increases in work done? Energy, because energy is by definition "the ability to do work."
There are two ways to increase one's production with energy. You can do that by increasing efficiency (using the same amount of energy more effectively), but this is usually just a marginal contribution. The other way is by applying more energy.
In the past, most energy came from food calories to fuel human or animal muscle. Then England started increasing its use of coal at a rapid rate in the 16th century. This was like finding buried treasure. Most of our innovations that economists use to explain economic growth merely consisted of finding new ways to put that buried treasure (energy embedded in ancient buried plants) to work.
As long as a large energy surplus exists, you can increase per capita production (increased income or GDP per person) by adopting the right tax, trade, and regulatory policies and different economic schools debate just which set of policies is best. But once the energy flows start getting smaller, less energy per capita (=less of "the ability to do work") will result in less work done per person in the population and therefore fewer goods and services produced per person. Policy optimization cannot fix that problem.
Production requires work and work requires energy. More energy per person=more work per person=more output per person. And less energy, then less work, and thus less output. Basic physical science. If economists really want to model their discipline on physics, then here's their chance.
bitcoin fixes this.