tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post8043677698746739033..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Economic Growth and Climate Change: Mistaking an Output Variable for an InstrumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-22309448816665776792019-01-06T22:02:27.643-05:002019-01-06T22:02:27.643-05:00Aw, garbledegook.
Aw, garbledegook.<br /><br />rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-75364707107422580582019-01-06T14:32:01.395-05:002019-01-06T14:32:01.395-05:00I like to think that I would at least minimally pr...I like to think that I would at least minimally proof read my comments if I was defending myself from accusations of incoherence.<br /><br />"...publicly states by wisely praised authors..."Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-3228678676071614202019-01-06T12:10:41.420-05:002019-01-06T12:10:41.420-05:00If your comment is directed at my last two comment...If your comment is directed at my last two comments, ai note that they are put out to mock certain poorly formulated arguments that we are seeing in this discussion. My points ma seem incoherent, but at a minimum they are not much more so than some of those poorly formulated arguments, some of which have been publicly states by wisely praised authors known for being "good writers," (hack, coungh), the good writing masking the inchoerence of the arguments.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-73829992490819136352019-01-04T23:47:13.977-05:002019-01-04T23:47:13.977-05:00You're totally incoherent, Barkley. I only men...You're totally incoherent, Barkley. I only mentioned the unpublished post to explain why I didn't want to regurgitate what I wrote about what Duncan Foley wrote. Don't let your hard nose get out of joint.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19457910973817797612019-01-04T23:33:17.098-05:002019-01-04T23:33:17.098-05:00Of course, ironically, SO2 pollution tends to cool...Of course, ironically, SO2 pollution tends to cool things down, so ending socialism in the "dirty triangle" contributed to global warming. So, gosh, maybe global warming is completely due to capitalism. :-)rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-4390096162560064102019-01-04T23:30:08.408-05:002019-01-04T23:30:08.408-05:00Gosh, S-man, sorry I =have not addressed the Looon...Gosh, S-man, sorry I =have not addressed the Looong post you have not posted. And, um, I certainly did not suggest that material throughput goes to zero. Where did you get that from?<br /><br />Oh, just to really kick a can, with all the mumbling about how brilliant NK is on ideology, I do note that 40 years ago we had possibly the most intensive S{)2 pollution ever seen on the planet due to humans in a place called "the dirty triangle." It was where three nations came toether, the former German Democratic Republic, the formeer Czechoslovakia, and Poland. None of these were capitalist in fact, unless one believes in old Trotskyist notions of "state capitalism," and all of them proudly claimed to be "socialist" and indeed were largely so by the accepted definitons of that economics system, although Poland less so than the other two. Today, the "dirty triangle" is largely cleaned up, and their economic systtems have changed, although what was more important for this to happen is that their political systems bwcame much more democratic.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-7504271495298367752019-01-04T01:08:45.288-05:002019-01-04T01:08:45.288-05:00Also, Barkley, this was an issue that Duncan Foley...Also, Barkley, this was an issue that Duncan Foley addressed in "Dilemmas of Economic Growth" that I write about in my loooong, long piece that I haven't posted yet to EconoSpeak. A great deal of what is currently counted as "immaterial growth" is income of financial intermediaries. I won't repeat my commentary on that here because it is already excessively condensed in my long post.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-46571551018781809672019-01-04T00:51:32.206-05:002019-01-04T00:51:32.206-05:00Barkley,
I was writing my last comment when you p...Barkley,<br /><br />I was writing my last comment when you posted yours, so mine doesn't address your question. <br /><br />"Would you not agree that this is a not unreasonable position, with this separate from however many hours people may work?"<br /><br />Yes, I see nothing wrong with providing higher-quality services with no increased material throughput that add to income or wealth. It is also not what most economic activity is about and doubling or tripling or quadrupling the provision of higher-quality services with no increased material throughput is not going to reduce aggregate material throughput.<br /><br />I thought you said you were hard-nosed. The people providing the high quality services have to eat, they have to have a roof over their head, they need to wear clothes. They are not going to spend all their income on high-quality services with no material throughput.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18582535055246804072019-01-04T00:38:45.982-05:002019-01-04T00:38:45.982-05:00Barkley,
Every hard-nosed economist started out a...Barkley,<br /><br />Every hard-nosed economist started out as an infant. And, as Donald Winnicott explained, "'there is no such thing as an infant' -- meaning, of course, that whenever one finds an infant one finds maternal care, and without maternal care there would be no infant."<br /><br />For a hard-nosed 21st century economist, GDP functions as a transitional object. Whether or not you believe you can forecast what would happen to GDP in the event of effective environmental policy, your identity as a hard-nosed economist obviously hinges on having hard-nosed opinions on the relationship between GDP, employment and environmental policy. Otherwise you would be just another "pollyanna" (although perhaps your use of that gender-disparaging term was ill-advised in the circumstances).<br /><br />For the infant, the transitional object may be a stuffed animal, a thumb or a piece of blanket. Winnicott wrote, "the transitional object and the transitional phenomena start each human being off with what will always be important for them, i.e., a neutral area of experience which will not be challenged."<br /><br />The transitional object replaces "the <i>illusion</i> that there is an external reality that corresponds to the infant's own capacity to create." That illusion is crucial to the psychic development of the infant <i>as is</i> the disillusionment that follows. Winnicott assumed "that the task of reality-acceptance is never completed, that no human being is free from the strain of relating inner and outer reality, and that relief from this strain is provided by an intermediate area of experience."<br /><br />GDP is thus doing something very important but it may not be doing what you think it is doing.<br /><br />Please don't mistake this for some glib attempt to "psycho-analyze" you. I don't have the training and if I did, I wouldn't be doing it off the cuff for free. I am no less invested in this transitional object of the GDP than you or Peter are. I am simply trying to grapple with why this particular aggregate measure has attained the "overrated" status that it has.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-11239784602072782272019-01-04T00:25:23.105-05:002019-01-04T00:25:23.105-05:00S-man,
I have had quite a few conversations with ...S-man,<br /><br />I have had quite a few conversations with "zero growth" Herman Daly over the years. Quite a long time ago (and repeatedly since) he agreed that in terms of the ecology the issue is the physical throughput of the economy, and that getting this under control, either not growing or better yet declining, which is the desideratum for ecological economics. <br /><br />However, he has always agreed that there could be growth of non-material output in the form of higher quality personal services. Would you not agree that this is a not unreasonable position, with this separate from however many hours people may work?rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45268437260485503632019-01-03T23:27:34.935-05:002019-01-03T23:27:34.935-05:00Peter,
No one is more careful and systematic than...Peter,<br /><br />No one is more careful and systematic than yours truly, if I do say so myself!<br /><br />It is an egregious error to assume negative growth is some sort of policy instrument advocated by the degrowth movement. The degrowth movement views the imperative of perpetual economic growth to be illegitimate and incoherent. It would be double-plus absurd for them to try to "fix" incoherence by "doing it backward." <br /><br />The term degrowth was always <i>supposed</i> to be a provocation, not a proposal. I have long argued that the term is inept because it lends itself to precisely such a misinterpretation, whether innocently or mischievously. No serious scholar, however, proposes using falling GDP as a gauge of ecological progress or as a cudgel to beat back ecological crisis.<br /><br />Many of the arguments that you make in the OP are compatible with things "degrowthers" actually advocate, as opposed to some chimerical, quixotic "strategy" for reducing carbon emissions by "dialing down" GDP.<br /><br />As I have argued here, if one wanted to dial down anything, it would have to be hours of work, which are much more highly correlated with carbon dioxide emissions than is GDP. Ah, but correlation is not causation, one might object. Exactly. Which is why such a proposal needs to be considered instead of rejected with superficial, disparaging assumptions about what the imaginary "idea behind it" is. I have spent two decades researching the fallacy of the dismissive "idea behind."<br /><br />Manifesto for a Suicide Cult<br />http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/02/manifesto-for-suicide-cult.html <br /><br />"In a nutshell, the degrowth argument is that there are real limits to growth and that consequently an end to growth will happen whether it is desired or not, planned or unplanned. It would thus be prudent to mitigate the prospective end of growth by planning for it, to whatever extent possible."<br /><br />Is the Ecological Salvation of the Human Species at Hand?<br />https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/09/is-ecological-salvation-of-human_20.html<br /><br />Some Questions about the Ten-Hour Week<br />https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/11/some-questions-about-ten-hour-week.htmlSandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-31887858413700503092019-01-03T22:58:02.131-05:002019-01-03T22:58:02.131-05:00I have been largely agreeing with Peter and largel...I have been largely agreeing with Peter and largely continue to do so.<br /><br />One area where maybe I am off on my own is that I simply find this whole morality argument vis a vis GDP to be pointless, and a major reason why is precisely all the problems that Peter raised about measuring it ans others, with my own earlier additions about how forecasting whixh way GDP would actually go with a move to having a strong environmental policy being up in the air.<br /><br />On Klein's arguments, the hard nosed economist in me notes that given that indeed boring conventionally measured GDP tends to equal incomes earned in an economy, talking about increasing employment while reducing GDP does involve a decrease in incomes of all those employed, although in historical practice declines in GDP have pretty much always involved declines in employment. It is this sort of pollyannaish set of arguments that makes Klein look, well, overrated...rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-16960475983879395572019-01-03T21:40:16.149-05:002019-01-03T21:40:16.149-05:00S-man, I would appreciate a reference to a careful...S-man, I would appreciate a reference to a careful, systematic argument for the degrowth position that is not vulnerable to my criticism of reversing causation. <br /><br />FWIW, I do not regard GDP as an indicator of value. It measures the availability of certain types of economic resources and corresponds to the amount of paid employment in a society, and as such, it has the potential to be put to good use. Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-8395096335894770292019-01-03T18:38:25.338-05:002019-01-03T18:38:25.338-05:00Peter Dorman,
It may be unclear to a reader of th...Peter Dorman,<br /><br />It may be unclear to a reader of the OP to appreciate what exactly your beef with "what we might call the Naomi Klein left" is. One has to follow the link and wade through the "obvious counter arguments" that the vision, in your account, pushes aside. Here is the beef:<br /><br />"Actually, I think hostility to economic growth is a moral position that expresses values, not a proposition that is intended to lead to laws or policies. This came to me in a flash when, after many pages of anti-growth rhetoric, Klein rhapsodized over how many new jobs would be created in the transition to a green economy. GDP would go down because growth is bad (and you can’t have it in a finite world), but jobs would go up because we care for our communities and want everyone to have a decent livelihood. On rational grounds it’s gibberish, but the moral logic is clear enough."<br /><br />Fair enough. Hostility to economic growth <i>is</i> a moral position. So is promotion of economic growth. And I agree, rhapsodies about how many new jobs will be created is gibberish -- as are rhapsodies about how many new jobs will be created by any other policy or set of policies. So your critique of Klein is not really about how much she differs from the prevailing paradigm but how little she differs. <br /><br />That's how I read what you are saying -- and I would agree -- but I suspect that is not how <i>you</i> read your disagreement with Klein. I suspect you retain quite a bit of investment in your three "obvious counter arguments": the qualitative nature of GDP, the dubious arithmetic of solving the carbon problem by degrowing, and the procedural conundrum of enacting degrowth. These counter arguments are gibberish, which is why it was probably prudent for you to segue to the objection that Klein's position was a moral one and not a practical one. I could go into detail on <i>why</i> your counter arguments are gibberish but it hardly seems necessary since you have framed them as ancillary to your main objection.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-62176650158245439502019-01-03T17:52:35.473-05:002019-01-03T17:52:35.473-05:00Yes, NK avoided making any egregious errors in dis...Yes, NK avoided making any egregious errors in discussing climate science, kept close to the widely availavle IPCC reports. So no hasssles from Michael Mann who could bloviate on how brilliant her ideological analysis is.<br /><br />As it is, S-man had it earlier: a lot of the overrating amounts blurbs that ar "puffery," although clearly there are a lot of people taking those blurbs a bit too seriously.<br /><br />Peter T.,<br /><br />Yes entrenched wealthy and powerful special interests fight hard to maintain their positions when threatened, and all those tied to fossil fuels are seriously challenged.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-3822606351798892612019-01-03T17:25:42.196-05:002019-01-03T17:25:42.196-05:00re the "ability to cope..is roughly proportio...re the "ability to cope..is roughly proportional to income" - I'm not sure this is true. A coal-plant electrician can switch to wiring renewables, while the Koch Bros face a much tougher ride. Wealth is almost all claims on future income - no income, no wealth. Also, destroy the value of capital stock and you destroy the flows that pump money around the world (eg the oil money that ends as real estate in London. Previous such shocks have left a lot of the upper classes waiting tables, living off the charity of class-mates or just plain dead. It's this that accounts for the obstinacy of the resistance.Peter Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13289172253358199028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-75991149746124632832019-01-03T14:28:09.949-05:002019-01-03T14:28:09.949-05:00Weird. I just got back to this site, and I find a ...Weird. I just got back to this site, and I find a raging debate about how sexist I am or am not. Well, I respect Naomi Klein highly as a journalist: she senses what her sector of the left is thinking before they sense it themselves. This is being a "thought leader" in a positive way. So when I say she's an exemplar, I only mean that this particular set of ideas is best found in her exposition of it.<br /><br />My beef is really with what the sector thinks. It's not based on pulling rank (as in "I'm an economist, and I think...."), but in what I view as the actual merit. I'm entirely open to rebuttals that say, you have missed the merit because of X. I try not to be sexist, to respond to NK and other women on the same terms I respond to men, but I'm open to being informed otherwise, based on specific examples. I've had sexist behavior pointed out to me in the past, and I've appreciated it.<br /><br />Incidentally, the climate science in <i>This Changes Everything</i> is pretty good; it's the rest of the thinking that drives me crazy.Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-23184165862299679402019-01-03T10:43:45.392-05:002019-01-03T10:43:45.392-05:00"Obviously lots of people think the book is a..."Obviously lots of people think the book is an 'insightful exploration of the ideology...' but so do lots of other people."<br /><br />That makes it unanimous!Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-54194225516256654492019-01-03T08:54:38.629-05:002019-01-03T08:54:38.629-05:00He also happens not to be an economist or a social...He also happens not to be an economist or a social sccientist. I take him seriously on climate, but not other things. Obviously lots of people think the book is an "insightful exploration of the ideology..." but so do lots of other people. She sells lots of books. This is how she got to be overrateed.<br /><br />BTW, I did not say she does not have insights or that she is always wrong. I said she is overrated and not an economist, and I stick to that.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-46268614876150421042019-01-02T21:07:54.967-05:002019-01-02T21:07:54.967-05:00"Michael Mann is an actual climatologist. Nao..."Michael Mann is an actual climatologist. Naomi Klein is not."<br /><br />Which is why I thought you might be interested to know what his view is on Klein's book.<br /><br />“<i>This Changes Everything</i> gets the science right, but it’s about much more than facts and figures. This is a deeply insightful exploration of the ideology and interests that have systematically blocked climate action and have undercut even good faith efforts. Klein gives no one a free pass. A rousing must-read!”Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-72201532095856342682019-01-02T20:54:48.097-05:002019-01-02T20:54:48.097-05:00The climatologist who is probably overrated on cli...The climatologist who is probably overrated on climate is James Hansen, who has also decided to comment on the economics of climate change, a matter on which he is not qualified and has said some stupid things.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-4716733097395624812019-01-02T20:47:15.016-05:002019-01-02T20:47:15.016-05:00Michael Mann is an actual climatologist. Naomi Kl...Michael Mann is an actual climatologist. Naomi Klein is not.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-5579747998102131012019-01-02T18:36:39.804-05:002019-01-02T18:36:39.804-05:00Would you also say that Michael Mann is overrated ...Would you also say that Michael Mann is overrated on climate?Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-38760668652938986192019-01-02T17:58:16.595-05:002019-01-02T17:58:16.595-05:00Of course the particular book that got brought int...Of course the particular book that got brought into this discussion is the one on climate and capitalism. I am probably getting even snottier, but I must note that Klein is also not a climatologist. Heck, at least with economics she has written quite a bit about and so I think has picked up quite a bit of knowledge, even if not having had formal training. <br /><br />But with regard to climate, well, maybe we should accept that she is the leading intellectual so can just pick up anything about anything including climate, and, heck, we certainly see all kinds of people spouting off about global climate with no training or background whatsoever on all sides, so, wow, Klein might as well get into it and be taken very very seriously as the leading left intellectual in the US. Yeah, wow.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-66773704958747426032019-01-02T17:42:56.443-05:002019-01-02T17:42:56.443-05:00(It's called puffery)(It's called puffery)Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com