tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post6350247520914802622..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: A farewell to growth?Matias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-59298737826291062112012-03-03T08:49:13.831-05:002012-03-03T08:49:13.831-05:00For a different view, more in line with what you t...For a different view, more in line with what you think see this paper by Minq Li and Chiara Piovani http://wrpe.plutojournals.org/Default.aspx?TabId=345&ArticleID=462Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-59314571067904405872012-03-03T08:35:53.151-05:002012-03-03T08:35:53.151-05:00Well not sure about the idea that "there'...Well not sure about the idea that "there's no reason that we could not reap the fruits of technological progress in shorter working hours rather than higher output." I do not know of any case in which a firm will introduce a new method of production, to reduce costs, and beat the competition, that does not result from a need to expand its production.<br /><br />The link between growth and productivity is pretty well established in the empirical literature, for example the Kaldor's Laws. In fact, I would agree with Steve Bannister who says that population dynamics has a far greater weight on carbon emissions than the greening of the energy supply. See his post here http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2011/11/finally-short-break.htmlMatias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-6997385287975272452012-03-03T08:21:36.710-05:002012-03-03T08:21:36.710-05:00No sweat, I got your point. I started replying bef...No sweat, I got your point. I started replying before you deleted it.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-4119854058026948602012-03-01T15:35:34.181-05:002012-03-01T15:35:34.181-05:00I deleted the comment you're replying to becau...I deleted the comment you're replying to because on reflection I decided it was rude. Sorry!JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-29233484359760720512012-03-01T15:34:12.660-05:002012-03-01T15:34:12.660-05:00Matias,
But that's a different question! Of c...Matias,<br /><br />But that's a different question! Of course unemployment has very large costs, and *as currently constituted* the economy cannot stop growing without generating unemployment. (In fact the social harm of unemployment is far greater than the lost output, which makes the link to growth more tenuous.) But the claim that growth -> employment -> happiness is not the same as the claim that growth -> happiness. I principle, there's no reason that we could not reap the fruits of technological progress in shorter working hours rather than higher output. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that EVERY SINGLE advocate of less/no growth says that's exactly what we should do. And before you say it's politically impossible, keep in mind that many countries, including the US in earlier periods, have indeed taken a large share of technological gains in the form of leisure.<br /><br />On the other point, it is certainly true that there is an important link from growth -> technological progress. But it's not an absolute link, there are lots of other factors. And whatever gain there is from speeding gthe development of clean technologies, has to be weighed against the cost of additional emissions in the meantime. It's also not obvious that technological progress always helps. It's only improved technology, after all, that e.g. makes the extraction of shale gas feasible. In the end, no matter what happens to technology, the climate problem will only be addressed when there is a political commitment to address it. In the meantime, faster growth *may* make things better, by speeding the development of carbon-saving technologies. Or it may make things worse, by increasing the amount of carbon burned before those technologies are in place, and/or by speeding the development of carbon-using technologies.JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-24838541509023249522012-03-01T14:13:47.936-05:002012-03-01T14:13:47.936-05:00Hi JW. The literature is huge, and not always cons...Hi JW. The literature is huge, and not always consistent. That's why I said in the post-scriptum that nobody necessarily believes in all of those things. There is value I think in providing a general overview of a particular intellectual movement (like growth skeptics), even if you (and others) might not agree with all the above propositions.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-645610396956120772012-03-01T13:14:44.807-05:002012-03-01T13:14:44.807-05:00Hi JW. Second question first. Yes. Ask the unemplo...Hi JW. Second question first. Yes. Ask the unemployed (African American, young, and women that are paid less for same work, in particular). There is a simple regularity called Okun's Law that shows that 2% growth above average brings unemployment down by 1%. This is what you need to eliminate the Tent cities (Hoooverviles?) have that sprung up in American cities after the crisis. Number one. The question is when will we burn them all, and how to avoid it. My point is that ALL the evidence for technical change (only way to reduce the burning, that will happen unless we find alternative sources) is with growth. Degrowth is just a way to create the catastrophe before.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-56570246370531245362012-03-01T13:07:25.164-05:002012-03-01T13:07:25.164-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-53780254037024805282012-03-01T13:04:22.544-05:002012-03-01T13:04:22.544-05:00So are you claiming that climate change would not ...So are you claiming that climate change would not be a problem if it were accompanied with appropriate redistributive policies? How confident are you that James Hansen is wrong when he argues that burning all available fossil fuels will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that will leave the Earth as an uninhabitable Venus?<br /><br />Second, do you believe that for a rich country (like the United States today), economic growth in itself makes a significant positive contribution to human wellbeing?JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-88587629789175546342012-03-01T13:02:43.505-05:002012-03-01T13:02:43.505-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-40549829049423098222012-02-27T18:04:22.277-05:002012-02-27T18:04:22.277-05:00Agreed. I would only say that the hope of signific...Agreed. I would only say that the hope of significant changes in CO2 growth connection demand huge State intervention and investment, rather than market mechanisms. At the end of the day, it's a discussion of what determines technical progress.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-37465520699187367142012-02-26T23:47:21.054-05:002012-02-26T23:47:21.054-05:00Good post. The problem I see with growth is that u...Good post. The problem I see with growth is that unless the rate at which the economy decouples from CO2 emissions (more GDP per unit of CO2 emitted) rapidly increases we are going to face harsh effects from climate change. As it stands now, more GDP = more CO2, the rate at which this is changing is far to slow to avoid serious climate change effects. As you point out this will no doubt disproportionately hit the poor in the world (one of the reasons I doubt any serious action will be taken by rich countries). Not to be a Malthusian, but the serious no growth folks (Daly, Costanza) have a legitimate point, they just don't have any reality based solutions or a good understanding of Keynesian Macro. They don't grasp the macro realities of no growth (or even slow growth) you layout in your post. Just my two cents.Jason Whittlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003361797682345270noreply@blogger.com