Yes, my favorite line also. Also, the term “mythomatics” instead of mathematics was nice to describe Classical Economists’ use of quantitative analysis. TBH, much of what Steve Keen says sounds just as gobbledygooky as the economists he is criticizing.
Agree with Steve, depression does set in worrying about the Climate Crisis. I joined Extinction Rebellion in 2019 and they have given me such support and joining in the actions with lovely like minded people has given me a focus. Join us on the 21st of April outside the UK Parliament, we are hoping for 100,000 people or more. There will be no disruption to the public.
It is quite unbelievable what lies, intelligent, educated, scientific minds have to construct to ignore the fact of truth. We humans are master liars to ourselves. We are choosing to get driven down the cliff in unity rather than walking a single stone path one by one. I thank you two and wish you a pleasant journey on your stone path.
This was an excellent interview (perhaps the best I've seen) and Q & A, thanks. "It gets back to Governance" Agree totally Nate. In my view this is why it must be governance driven by local community and so on up to national (community) level based on deliberative democracy of some sort. We iterate as we go. Short tenure for those in the deliberative assembly chosen by sortition and advised by those qualified by relevant academic and/or experience. No politicians of the present kind or corporate elites allowed. How to decide who decides, but we have to learn, try things out, and be nimble footed, lose our false sense of privilege and work on a service to life and community basis.
Interview is over a half year old. Musk only really went off the track with Twitter in October last year. Though Elon had it coming for some time. Could go in a greatest fool contest with the Donald shortly
Mr. Keen is one of my absolute favorites so thank you for this content Nate! How about Yanis Varofakis or Mark Blythe please? Two other economists with a clear understanding of the dire situation we are in.
Thank you both Steve and Nate, I know that both of your time is valuable and appreciate that, I wish however that you could sit down for a few hours and pick a few of the most important items you're discussing and really dive deep into those points. This is such a big picture portrait being tackled that needs as you say Nate, simplification and how we can plan for the inevitably of this reality coming to pass. Thank you again gentlemen.
One thing I take hope from is the idea that hunger and desperation concentrate the mind. When people are affected by regular and lengthening blackouts, they won't be able to distract themselves with movies and tv and twitch and video games, and they'll have a lot more time to think and read and start some more sensible planning. What Prof Keen worries about, a global revolt of the poor, is something us socialists and Marxians have been expecting and hoping for forever. Conservative philosophy, as far as it ever thinks about enonomic inquality and poverty at all, and most of conservative philosophy is finding ways to avoid thinking about the socio-economic elephant in their elegant living rooms, frets about a spectre they call "social breakdown", or sometimes "societal collapse". We call it revolution, and they fear it not because it means the end of civilsation and a descent into wholesale murder and cannibalism, but the end of their power and a rectification of society in the direction of justice. So the revolt of the poor is on the way, and thank God, finally, it's long overdue and urgently necessary.
Another excellent show! Thank you so much Mr. Hagens and Mr. Keen. If anyone listens to this and doesn't start preparing, man, they're just not listening. Go solar now, start building your community gardens now, store some food, store some seeds, get to know your neighbors today, plan for the collapse now.
This conversation is WAY above the economic intellectual understanding of "everyday" people. I wish it could be translated in terms that are meaningful to the rest of us.
Climate change bad; need to return 1970s level of energy consumption. Vested interests are not giving up growth ambition. We are beyond the point to engineering change for prevention, we are in war mode and rationing of energy and consumption will be required. Neoclassical economics ignore role of energy in their production function and lack models linked to biophysical limitations.
At @ 2:47 Steve talks about bringing thermodynamics/energy into economics. In a Local Futures conference in Michigan held in 2010 Steve Presented his model. No energy, no thermodynamics. Profit, money, yes. Thermodynamics, no. I pointed out that profit acts like energy and was a drain on the total energy of the system. You can't have a steady-state economy with profit. IF one tries to model a perfect balance of profit flow back *into* the system, they're deluding themselves. That is not what happens. It gets consumed as boats and planes and thousands of dollars a month in energy bills for the ten houses a rich person owns. E.g. I'd like to have this history acknowledged because being a "layman" with no MA/MS or PhD, nobody listens to what I have to say. This is not the only novel thing I have suggested that has been proven accurate. Love the work, but would like the credit where due only so people will not be so quick to dismiss my analyses.
Brilliant interview on the real economy- ie energy and the ecosphere. But, for me, the wheels came off when Steve suggested that Mars will be the repository of human knowledge. Absurd! Even an unimaginably damaged Earth will be infinitely more suited to storing human knowledge in one form or other. Elon Musk is not coming to the rescue; actually the opposite.
Yup, that was a shocker. Initially I thought he was making a joke. Having been so brilliant, and then that! Even though Nate is a super-nice guy, that idea deserved an "are you effing kidding me?" response!
Yeah a bit mad that one was. Making it to Mars is Rapture ideology. Heaven for scientists. Channeling Jamie Wheal when I say that... Hopefully he wouldn't leave us all the die in the mud and shit to get to the promised land. If we suffer together, there is no suffering.
Please cut the man some slack! This was an astounding interview. Keen shared a moving description of the emotional toll that deep understanding of the human predicament takes on his psyche. He admitted depression. Then he was honest enough to admit his emotional tactic that gave his a glimmer of hope that our collective knowledge will survive! I have even more respect for the man after hearing that.
Excellent discussion of all the black holes underpinning our economic systems and the hard edges this resultant swiss cheese, hollow culture is going to bang up against in the very near future. (Or perhaps is currently crashing into right now.) But I think I'd like a show with Breen's wife. We are going to have a hell of a time for the next many decades. But we'll still be living and dying and eating and making new humans. There will be pain, but there will be smiles and laughter. And we have to learn that this is enough. That's it's good even... That's how we preserve the knowledge, I think. Or maybe that's how we preserve wisdom.
It has gotten so bad now that companies take out enormous amounts of debt before they even have a product and they ramp up production so far that they actually lose money until they reach an enormous amount of output.
I enjoyed this interview, though I found much of the economic theory difficult to understand. I notice, however, that, once again for a video on this channel, both host and guest have talked past the reality that lies at the crux of our socioeconomic system: the fact that tens of millions of us in the U.S. are landless wage slaves, in thrall to our apartment management companies such that if we can't cover our monthly rent (which is often close to 50% of our total income), and don't have savings or wealthy relatives to fall back on, we'll sure to be soon without housing. Even worse, residential property management firms have over the past decade or so become increasingly absorbed by massive venture capital firms. Since I don't see much chance of such financial interests lowering their rents when a post-growth scenario ensures that many of us no longer have a job to go to, that means we'll all be out on the street in such an eventuality? And, under the scheme Nate Hagens advocates, these firms would be allowed to keep 100% of the rent they're gouging from those who are no longer able to pay it tax-free?
"At the moment we are figuring it out, we are destroying it simultaneously." That was the situation in the sixties with "Silent Spring" and the unleashing of carbon science.
Current Environmental Impact Assessments that government require to assess potential impacts do no require the energy use for an activity to be expressed . What's a formula that measures energy use for any business activity - if consenting authorities need to measure it for approval ? We need a useful formula to understand how this is measured yearly with room for fluctuations in energy use.
Keen should talk to Peterson who has an opposite and somewhat dangerous perspective on climate change (influenced by Lomborg who sounds very naive with his claims about climate change).
Dr. Keen is a brilliant system's analyst, but what we really need as R. Buckminster Fuller said is system's philosophers...because the concepts/paradigms behind our various systems are where the real power for change exists.
Agree with this discussion. Thanks! Also I wonder even if we switched to all nuclear, would the waste heat issue still heat the biosphere enough to melt the ice caps? Basically do coastal cities need to move inland regardles? Plus I think even with things like hydrogen made from wind turbines, hydrogen still creates NOx and other pollutants or things that might affect ozone layer? I for one won't be investing in beach property but I may still want to visit the beach and just stay at a hotel.
This was a great discussion however, I would like to see you interview a MMT economist. -What do you have to loose? I think your audience would be well served to hear as many perspectives as possible. Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, L. Randall Wray Any one of them would offer great insights.
We must ask the question, also, Nate, why listen to economists at all if they refuse to learn from those who DO regenerative systems? We really can't. Keen and others come tantalizingly close to "getting it," only to ultimately fall back on their Econ educations an fail to listen to those who know how to live *with* the rest of nature. You should interview me as a counterpoint, a counter-balance to this Econ-centric approach to solving our problems. Or listen to my interviews with indigenous people and anthropologists about how people create regenerative economies. The key role for economists in the shift from industrial to regenerative lies in negotiating the transition, not in determining where we end up. No economist is prepared to accurately describe that - not even Steve Keen, whom I consider the greatest living economist. But he doesn't know anything at all about regenerative systems and so should be reaching out to those of us who do. As should you.
I don’t think it’s necessary to get depressed over the realization that neoclassical economics has underestimated the importance of energy and climate. I’m sure humans will do as they do regardless of what any dominant school of economics holds to be true. Mai pen rai!
This is a really good discussion. Obviously, we can't go into the future using up our resources. On the other hand, must it not be true that the Universe's supply of energy is much, much greater than man's insatiable adverse? Excuse the climate change pun, but it boils down to living in fresh air, clean water, and peace.
@@thegreatsimplification I didn’t realize your show notes are so detailed! Thanks for all you’re doing, Nate. I look forward to these conversations every week. I’m sure you’ve got guests lined up already for a while, but I would love to hear a deep dive into climate justice as social/racial justice. A topic that often gets lost in economic discussions. Again, my many thanks for the excellent interviews.
YES! Carbon credits to the poor, on a credit card with the carbon consumer buying off the poor consumer...and the exchange rotates through a pool or "moneyshed". Our production of waste that is "housed in the atmosphere" as CO2 is the basis for the money.
At @ 40:30, Nate talks about the need for funding and research for a bio-physical model. NATE: It already exists. It always has. What fascinates me is you both acknowledge slower would have been better. (I was 12 when I realized we needed to slow down the implementation of technology because of the inefficiencies of having so many versions of the same thing - competition - and we badly impacting the planet already.) Then, when it comes to solutions you don't say, well, obviously we must look to Nature, you say, let's ask the PhDs! Jesus Christ... So, You mentioned earlier energy and resource flows. Guess who understands those so well they have lived in harmony with their surrounding for hundreds, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of years? Intact indigenous communities. The biophysical model you seek? Regenerative Governance. Quit ignoring me, and let's talk. There are patterns, principles, and characteristics. What we need is a map of the TRANSITION, not the ultimate solution. We already know what that *must* be.
@@kkob I'm trying to provide a bit of feedback for you, since it seems like you have something to say. But you come across like like a lost cause, bitter and resentful for somehow not getting recognized for your self ascribed brilliance. Obviously you're beyond the feedback being useful. So there's nothing to add to someone who screeches about their own amazing insights, without actually providing such insights. So keep on keeping on buddy. Good luck to you getting all those "idiots to see how right you always were."
Hi Nate, I wonder if you misspoke at about minute 32.35? You asked what if everyone understood.... That energy contributes as low as .6 to as high as ".1"... To the economy. Did you mean "1"? Can you add a text overlay or a dub in if needed. It seems to me it is your main point, so I'm eager to see your message reach as many people as possible.
Seems to me Neoclassical economics was never about economics and more about it being a usefully strategic obsfuscation employed by smartly suited carpet baggers.
Brilliant and incisive analysis… until we get to Musk on Mars. It’s been said ad nauseum, but it seems it needs to be said again: if we haven’t solved our fundamental problems as humans here, how can you believe we will solve them anywhere else? You’re worried about losing the knowledge we have learned, Steve, but the most essential - the prosocial axioms, the applied principles of cooperative flourishing- we have NOT yet learned. All we’d be taking to Mars is our ignorance and psychopathologies.
Fighting yesterdays battles? How many angels on the head of a pin? "The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union." consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/
47:00 Humanity has consumed half the fossil fuels ever created. The other half is in tar sands, permafrost, underwater drilling and other high cost ventures. The energy supply within the global market is bear.
hey, have you read nafeez ahmed's new "deep dive" paper, available on the club of rome website, called "The clean energy transformation: a new paradigm for social progress within planetary boundaries"? i'm hoping to see someone like you, or rachel donald dissect that paper, maybe with nafeez himself, if possible? i loved the books and articles of nafeez, but this one feels weird / unrealistic to me. it's really not clear how he imagines the trajectory he outlines in that report to happen outside the current capitalist structures. if you could do an episode with him, that'd be super awesome!!! and of course, thanks for sharing this discourse; as always, i appreciate it!
After we deal with the monetary paradigm via gifting we need to politically utilize another aspect of the natural philosophical concept of grace, Redeemed/Redemptive Sovereignty to make and direct the wise decisions necessary to confront the problems of over consumption and energy. As mega a set of projects as the off planeting of most of production and mining the solar system for resources are, I don't see how we can shrink from them even if we solve fusion or find a way to technologize the energy of the quantum vacuum. I would only say that no matter what the problem, we need to heed the fact that Wisdom insights and paradigm changes are analogous phenomena in that they are the integration of opposites and thus even though they are fraught with paradox and seeming illogic they are also associated with "third way" solutions and major moments of human progress.
This talk contains elements of Charles Hall's book "Energy and the Wealth of Nations." Let's hope we can develop an energy source as dense as either coal or oil for the future. Personally, I expect nuclear to play a more vital role in the future of energy.
It's not just the sources of energy we need, we also need entropy sinks. Degrowth is going to have to be part of how humanity deals with our predicament.
We could create any type of system to move, trade, and acquire products and services, that we could imagine.. Our current system is self destructive, violent, and undermines civilization itself and the living planet..We are millions of miles away from where we need to be with 8 billion people on the planet..Just the fact that we move mountains, go to space and the bottom of the oceans, but can't afford to save ourselves and the living planet, proves that this system is child like and needs to be replaced, and the term money should be eradicated from the language and consciousness...
There's no financial overshoot in the way the host describes. Central bankers decide the risk free rate in their own meetings and aren't beholden to the private bond market.
The rising prosperity in the United States that began following the end of the Second World War occurred because so much of the rest of the world was in chaos. The seeds of the eventual downturn existed but the effects were mitigated by the massive infusion of Federal spending along with the temporary increased unionization of workers able to gain improvements in wages and benefits by collective bargaining. The end came with the escalating prices of fossil fuels orchestrated by the oil-producing nations. This occurred on top of escalating prices of land and natural resources, generally. From the late 1970s on the real (i.e., inflation adjusted) income of the bottom 70-80 percent of began to fall and continued to fall. The next devastating change occurred with the so-called "Reagan revolution." The reduction in marginal tax rates on individual income and business profits accelerated the process of income and wealth concentration at the top of the population. Deregulation of the financial services sector carried this to even further extremes. What must be done to create real "equality of opportunity" in the United States? There are two reforms absolutely necessary to turn things around. First, local governments (town, city, borough, townships, and counties) and school districts need to scrap the conventional way to raise public revenue in favor of a single tax. This single tax is to be imposed on any private individual or entity owning land in a community. The amount of the tax needs to be as close as possible to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held. All buildings need to be exempted from the tax base. This change will have to be implemented over a period of years (say, a decade). Each year the rate of taxation on the assessed value of land would be increased, and the rate imposed on the assessed value of buildings increased. Property assessments must be updated each year based on current market data. If the property tax generates sufficient revenue, other taxes should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. At the federal level the individual income tax must be simplified and made progressive. First, exempt all individual incomes up to the national median. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt income level, impose and increasing rate of income on higher ranges of income. What we know to be true is that very high incomes are DERIVED from special privileges under law and from speculation, not from the production of needed goods and services. Remember that the U.S. economy did quite well when the highest marginal tax rate was over 80 percent. Thirdly (but not finally, as even more needs to be done), replace the business profits tax with a graduated tax on gross income. Exempt some level of business revenue from taxation. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt amount impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of revenue. Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
the machine of human civilization keeps going faster....more births...bigger machines...more drilling...more burning...more suburbs...more plastics...24 hours per day every day the huge diesel motors are running......you do the math....ya think we have much time left....?,,,,you can discuss money and economy all you want but real real soon money wont mean anything and scrambling just for survival will be the order of the day.
The base of the land food chain is insects; in the California central valley only ~10% insects compared to 50 years ago. The Plankton at the base of the ocean's food chain is likewise greatly diminished. Does humanity think Earth can survive with just livestock and crops?
@@liamhackett513 A mobile device or computer is a system of integrated components, one can remove small bits of the system and it will still limp along for a while. Same with the Earth.
@@EvolutionWendy Absolutely false. Even working as a developer for software, I can tell you that the components interact with certain propietary firmware specifications that radically transform how programs are written and computed. That radical change in itself makes certain components especially in GPUs incompatible with other devices to the point that the whole device will not turn on. That does not even factor if you have language instructions that can do computations that match the correct architecture of the system hardware and kernels.
"At least half the planet reserved for non human life forms". I don't know, would it be possible to leave Mother Nature maybe 80% untouched instead? Gaia has been doing her thing before we showed up, and will continue after we are gone. Not sure if She "owes" us anything. Let alone half the planet. Haven't done the math to see what's workable. Just thinking. It's essential to view Nature is preeminent. It is ultimately Her World, no? I am a Scientist... Love Nate and Keene. But am also an unapologetic Gaian. I don't think Nature gets the respect, protection or reverence She obviously deserves. This is HER planet. We should be learning from Her. We should be here working with Her to make the World and Biosphere more resilient, productive, diverse, inhabitable, and anti-fragile. For other species and our own. This may be the "mission" and "birth right" we have been neglecting for so long. Causing for all these catastrophes, waste, unnecessary suffering and death. I think maybe cultivating these attitudes and values may be helpful in these spaces? Give us motivation and PURPOSE. REAL PURPOSE, even Community we can commit to and draw strength from. Not the counterproductive false, lonely, hopeless, despair, or nihilism that seems to permeate in these important social/intellectual spaces. I KNOW fighting for the benefit and continuation of The Natural World is a cause worth working and fighting for. I cannot think of anything more important. Nothing more worthy of committing my time, energy, intellect and creative gifts toward. Sorry. seems after Steve's talk - some positive motivation may be helpful?
I agree with you: my preferred level of the planet reserved for Nature is 80% too. But that implies a huge reduction in human population and consumption, and it would freak people out even more than saying 50% does.
What are you guys talking about. Everyone is expanding natural gas production like mad and there's a LOT of it. Starting this year we will see a lot of new capacity come online
Mad Max is coming. Or see 'The Coming Plague' by Laurie Garrett published 1994 with her other work. Often in great human crisis as with the Black Death nature intervenes though now our ability to process vaccines...
economic charts are diagrams not true graphs. economic diagrams about money aren't graphs because money doesn't act like the phenomena of physics. mass and energy are conserved; money is not. mass and energy are cardinal; prices are ordinal.
Ask heterodox economists and engineers how to solve our problems???? STEVE! What the everloving hell? That is a bizarre statement. You have built a career by saying Economics is basically nonsense. You state clearly biophysical considerations are most important. You say there are limits. THEN you say ask economists and engineers, both of who ignore everything you've just said, what to do about it. Wow. No, Steve, just no. Completely wrong. I realize you are setting yourself and other heterodox economists apart from neo-classical economics, but as you learned from me in 2010, an now base your steady-state model on, you must make the energy flows work. HOWEVER, what you have so far failed to understand is that it is the MICRO that creates the macro, and economics, as you have said many, many times, is primarily concerned with the macro. I.e., you have already unknowingly acknowledged Economics, and the macro scale of designing a society, cannot be the pathway to regenerativeness. Regenerative systems designers (intact indigenous communities, permaculturists, et al.) have long known that you must fully integrate the macro and micro. Until you learn how to model the micro, you cannot possibly develop viable models for society. But you don't need to. We've already done it. All you need to do is listen.
I hate neoliberalism. I can't understand what this guy is talking about. He's not speaking for the layman. I've listened to many talks by matt Stoller, Guy Standing, Michael Hudson,Bill Black all experts in economics and inveterate enemies of neo-liberalism, they all make their arguments without going into abstruse jargon you need to be an economics major to even comprehend. As Matt Stoller writes FDR read 30 some economists reports on the great depression. FDR said not one of them agree and all of them entirely written in jargon. It's pisses me off, cause I'd love nothing more than to understand how neo-liberalism is a flaming crock of shit
Maybe read and get educated so that your knowledge base goes above and beyond that of a lay person. Most westerners especially the USA have a paternalistic mindset that people owe them knowledge and have to figure all life's problems for them especially when in today's age most of the information can be found in public libraries and on the web. Maybe that is why most Americans get the kind of leaders whom operate at almost the same kind of though process as the citizens merely because of that mentality of refusing to acquire knowledge in an area of speciality to eventually connect the dots and rather default to politicians influenced by neoliberal economists to reassure them unreal optimistic visions of the future to satisfy the fragile emotional state of the masses.
@@georgeokello8620 well okay, so you insinuated that am and most Americans are completely boors. You don't know anything about me.. economics in particular is based on theory because it's not actually a Stem subject. And as this channel as opined, if I had taken the time to learn economics it would have be a complete waste of time since neo classical economics is voodoo to justify the acquisition of mammon by the ruling class. Furthermore PMC douche, it's not my responsibility to learn the jargon primarily created to delibrately wield language as a weapon of class, as your attempting to put me in my place now, as some kinda of imagined superior. No the masses haven't and can't follow an abstruse field that takes years of unproductive activity to be proficient in, and in your case, especially because it's entirely based on unsubstantiated theories with no grounding in STEM whatsoever, and without the cultural depth of the humanity. Basically you can't and won't, nor do you actually want to the public to be adroit in your BS argot. So that's a non argument. So that leaves you believe your dressing down an inferior. Um yeah. Go fuck yourself, colonel dipshit. (left handed salute)
Everyone had their own style and approach. Keen is very rigorous at giving an analysis that combines heterodox economics and systems theory. If those are unclear, then Keen is def difficult to listen to. Still worth trying imo.
Saying the Chinese would accept rationing and the Americans wouldn't is no praise, I am sorry to say. Both ideas have embedded nightmares and injustices. Rationing of general consumption to stave off catasprophe makes sense. We would need to vote for it. Scientists taking charge had better not be captured by special interests, as is the case of big pharma and the revolving door of oversight and crushing of dissidents. Banning advertising where Satan conjures up false desires would be a start in fostering waste reduction. The clothes turnover alone evokes the alternative image of a commie cadre's once a year cloth allocation to reduce land fill. Creative people could tart up their uniforms. In the 60s people made do with basic furniture. A piece of long pine on two cement blocks created a book shelf as part of delayed consumption. There was less instant gratification. Emphasising the harms of natural resource and habitat destructiion and plastics would better persuade people to accept less consumption than climate fears. The latter does not fully concentrate minds of many still adapting to weather changes.
I hear Steve Keen talking as though capitalism can be tuned, adapted. I doubt it. A system based on industrial transformation of natural materials into stuff that distracts and entertains has produced our culture. Where is something that looks 100 thousand years ahead - properly long term? I think the human response will be reactive - green delusions, electric car fantasies, carbon offsets, wars, refugee isolation. We will only get the message when capitalism collapses because the economics fail and we are left cold and hungry. Then we are back to where we started - human labor and land and plants and animals. I wonder if capitalism was a distraction from the fear of death - a dream of escape from nature into a glittering human-created world of things, images, colors, medical technology and mastery over nature.
He addresses this and say that if we don’t retain our knowledge and technology, we will deindustrialize where a possibility is a Mad Max like dystopia. He also says that government needs to be driving not the market, but this doesn’t mean that all market-based mechanisms are eliminated.
@@viraltarpara1704 Steve is expressing a hope, not making a promise. I suspect we will de-industrialize one way or another as the natural environment caves in and we concentrate on local survival. Just now the garbage truck came by to take tons of rubbish to landfill. Industrialization of any kind, including capitalist industrialization, requires waste because it produces continually. We have had 250 years of industrialization and the planet is in trouble - I ask, can that continue for another 100,000 years?
From first principles economists measure value based on money... the real sciences use measurable objective units of measure. Money value is highly subjective and so open to fudging. Not a science in the true sense of the word.
Spin spin spin. Nate Hagens guy could wash clothes. If you want to tax people into a future of death, this is who you would follow. He forgets the 1600s-1900s were more or less gasoline oil free yet we were beginning the industrial revolution. Not going to say he's and Idiot but just shy of one. Thumbs Down.
"What if everyone understood, that energy is high at .1 as low as .6" Right. What if everyone understood that. I'll tell you what if everyone understood that, the whole world all be econ grad students
Nope. It's just the point that growth in economy has a 1 to 1 relation with increase in energy use and energy waste. Infinite exponential growth = overshoot & collapse. It's thar simple at the end of the day.
"Labor without energy is a corpse; capital without energy is a sculpture." Brilliant line.
Yes, my favorite line also. Also, the term “mythomatics” instead of mathematics was nice to describe Classical Economists’ use of quantitative analysis. TBH, much of what Steve Keen says sounds just as gobbledygooky as the economists he is criticizing.
Capital without labor is a piggy bank....
@@paulwhetstone0473😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😮😮😅😅😮😅😮😅😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😮
Agree with Steve, depression does set in worrying about the Climate Crisis. I joined Extinction Rebellion in 2019 and they have given me such support and joining in the actions with lovely like minded people has given me a focus. Join us on the 21st of April outside the UK Parliament, we are hoping for 100,000 people or more. There will be no disruption to the public.
Thank you. Your comment has inspired to look into joining this group.
It is quite unbelievable what lies, intelligent, educated, scientific minds have to construct to ignore the fact of truth. We humans are master liars to ourselves. We are choosing to get driven down the cliff in unity rather than walking a single stone path one by one. I thank you two and wish you a pleasant journey on your stone path.
This is my favourite interview on this channel. Not only a great engineering economist but a natural at epistemology also.
Professor Keen is a beast, thanks for having him.
This was an excellent interview (perhaps the best I've seen) and Q & A, thanks. "It gets back to Governance" Agree totally Nate. In my view this is why it must be governance driven by local community and so on up to national (community) level based on deliberative democracy of some sort. We iterate as we go. Short tenure for those in the deliberative assembly chosen by sortition and advised by those qualified by relevant academic and/or experience. No politicians of the present kind or corporate elites allowed. How to decide who decides, but we have to learn, try things out, and be nimble footed, lose our false sense of privilege and work on a service to life and community basis.
"I'm an Elon Musk fan boy" - ayayay, one must not to be a fan of an agent of doom. Did not expect to hear that from Prof Keen.
Interview is over a half year old. Musk only really went off the track with Twitter in October last year. Though Elon had it coming for some time. Could go in a greatest fool contest with the Donald shortly
This incredible exchange should be repackaged into bite size 5 to 7 minute pieces for sharing on social media
Nate thanks for all the work you do it has really changed my outlook on the world
Nate brings another great guest! I look forward to my overshoot Thursday classes from all my favorite UA-camrs!
Mr. Keen is one of my absolute favorites so thank you for this content Nate! How about Yanis Varofakis or Mark Blythe please? Two other economists with a clear understanding of the dire situation we are in.
this was an especially good one Nate ! thank you !
ProfSteveKeen knows life is worth fighting for
Hopefully it’s ALL life, and not just human life.
@@mkkrupp2462 who cares
Thank you both Steve and Nate, I know that both of your time is valuable and appreciate that, I wish however that you could sit down for a few hours and pick a few of the most important items you're discussing and really dive deep into those points. This is such a big picture portrait being tackled that needs as you say Nate, simplification and how we can plan for the inevitably of this reality coming to pass. Thank you again gentlemen.
Great podcast gentlemen Important discussion. Perhaps THE most important?
Simply fabulous. Definitely one of my favourites interviews ever!
One thing I take hope from is the idea that hunger and desperation concentrate the mind. When people are affected by regular and lengthening blackouts, they won't be able to distract themselves with movies and tv and twitch and video games, and they'll have a lot more time to think and read and start some more sensible planning. What Prof Keen worries about, a global revolt of the poor, is something us socialists and Marxians have been expecting and hoping for forever. Conservative philosophy, as far as it ever thinks about enonomic inquality and poverty at all, and most of conservative philosophy is finding ways to avoid thinking about the socio-economic elephant in their elegant living rooms, frets about a spectre they call "social breakdown", or sometimes "societal collapse". We call it revolution, and they fear it not because it means the end of civilsation and a descent into wholesale murder and cannibalism, but the end of their power and a rectification of society in the direction of justice. So the revolt of the poor is on the way, and thank God, finally, it's long overdue and urgently necessary.
Another Super Post. Thank you❤❤!
Wow, this was such an awesome episode!
Fabulous conversation!
Another excellent show! Thank you so much Mr. Hagens and Mr. Keen. If anyone listens to this and doesn't start preparing, man, they're just not listening. Go solar now, start building your community gardens now, store some food, store some seeds, get to know your neighbors today, plan for the collapse now.
so many truth nuggets in this discussion.
This conversation is WAY above the economic intellectual understanding of "everyday" people. I wish it could be translated in terms that are meaningful to the rest of us.
Climate change bad; need to return 1970s level of energy consumption. Vested interests are not giving up growth ambition. We are beyond the point to engineering change for prevention, we are in war mode and rationing of energy and consumption will be required. Neoclassical economics ignore role of energy in their production function and lack models linked to biophysical limitations.
At @ 2:47 Steve talks about bringing thermodynamics/energy into economics. In a Local Futures conference in Michigan held in 2010 Steve Presented his model. No energy, no thermodynamics. Profit, money, yes. Thermodynamics, no. I pointed out that profit acts like energy and was a drain on the total energy of the system. You can't have a steady-state economy with profit.
IF one tries to model a perfect balance of profit flow back *into* the system, they're deluding themselves. That is not what happens. It gets consumed as boats and planes and thousands of dollars a month in energy bills for the ten houses a rich person owns. E.g.
I'd like to have this history acknowledged because being a "layman" with no MA/MS or PhD, nobody listens to what I have to say. This is not the only novel thing I have suggested that has been proven accurate.
Love the work, but would like the credit where due only so people will not be so quick to dismiss my analyses.
Fantastic episode, thank you for the work you do.
Best interview I have seen here.
Great episode, thank you both!!
Brilliant interview on the real economy- ie energy and the ecosphere. But, for me, the wheels came off when Steve suggested that Mars will be the repository of human knowledge. Absurd! Even an unimaginably damaged Earth will be infinitely more suited to storing human knowledge in one form or other. Elon Musk is not coming to the rescue; actually the opposite.
Yup, that was a shocker. Initially I thought he was making a joke. Having been so brilliant, and then that! Even though Nate is a super-nice guy, that idea deserved an "are you effing kidding me?" response!
My thoughts precisely…
Yeah a bit mad that one was. Making it to Mars is Rapture ideology. Heaven for scientists. Channeling Jamie Wheal when I say that... Hopefully he wouldn't leave us all the die in the mud and shit to get to the promised land. If we suffer together, there is no suffering.
Yep.
Please cut the man some slack! This was an astounding interview. Keen shared a moving description of the emotional toll that deep understanding of the human predicament takes on his
psyche. He admitted depression. Then he was honest enough to admit his emotional tactic that gave his a glimmer of hope that our collective knowledge will survive!
I have even more respect for the man after hearing that.
Amazing pod, thank you for this!
another great video nate.....thanx
Absolutely brilliant. The ball is presently in our court.
Excellent discussion of all the black holes underpinning our economic systems and the hard edges this resultant swiss cheese, hollow culture is going to bang up against in the very near future. (Or perhaps is currently crashing into right now.) But I think I'd like a show with Breen's wife. We are going to have a hell of a time for the next many decades. But we'll still be living and dying and eating and making new humans. There will be pain, but there will be smiles and laughter. And we have to learn that this is enough. That's it's good even... That's how we preserve the knowledge, I think. Or maybe that's how we preserve wisdom.
Yay, been waiting for this, can't believe Lex Fridman got in before you Nate
Good episode.
Knowledge is great when applied with wisdom
It has gotten so bad now that companies take out enormous amounts of debt before they even have a product and they ramp up production so far that they actually lose money until they reach an enormous amount of output.
I enjoyed this interview, though I found much of the economic theory difficult to understand.
I notice, however, that, once again for a video on this channel, both host and guest have talked past the reality that lies at the crux of our socioeconomic system: the fact that tens of millions of us in the U.S. are landless wage slaves, in thrall to our apartment management companies such that if we can't cover our monthly rent (which is often close to 50% of our total income), and don't have savings or wealthy relatives to fall back on, we'll sure to be soon without housing. Even worse, residential property management firms have over the past decade or so become increasingly absorbed by massive venture capital firms. Since I don't see much chance of such financial interests lowering their rents when a post-growth scenario ensures that many of us no longer have a job to go to, that means we'll all be out on the street in such an eventuality? And, under the scheme Nate Hagens advocates, these firms would be allowed to keep 100% of the rent they're gouging from those who are no longer able to pay it tax-free?
Thanks, great conversation!
❤Thank you🌹👍, very interesting! Thank you, Steve Keen and Nate, sincere, bright ✨🔆minds!
Ha. This a great. I was just thinking of contacting you re. Steve Keen. Thanks.
"At the moment we are figuring it out, we are destroying it simultaneously." That was the situation in the sixties with "Silent Spring" and the unleashing of carbon science.
Current Environmental Impact Assessments that government require to assess potential impacts do no require the energy use for an activity to be expressed . What's a formula that measures energy use for any business activity - if consenting authorities need to measure it for approval ? We need a useful formula to understand how this is measured yearly with room for fluctuations in energy use.
Keen should talk to Peterson who has an opposite and somewhat dangerous perspective on climate change (influenced by Lomborg who sounds very naive with his claims about climate change).
Dr. Keen is a brilliant system's analyst, but what we really need as R. Buckminster Fuller said is system's philosophers...because the concepts/paradigms behind our various systems are where the real power for change exists.
Agree with this discussion. Thanks! Also I wonder even if we switched to all nuclear, would the waste heat issue still heat the biosphere enough to melt the ice caps? Basically do coastal cities need to move inland regardles? Plus I think even with things like hydrogen made from wind turbines, hydrogen still creates NOx and other pollutants or things that might affect ozone layer? I for one won't be investing in beach property but I may still want to visit the beach and just stay at a hotel.
This was a great discussion however, I would like to see you interview a MMT economist. -What do you have to loose? I think your audience would be well served to hear as many perspectives as possible.
Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, L. Randall Wray Any one of them would offer great insights.
" . . . Then 10 minutes later, I had, it was, Y=K(C*L)C where the E in that is the energy input to
30:54 both labor and capital. "?
We must ask the question, also, Nate, why listen to economists at all if they refuse to learn from those who DO regenerative systems? We really can't. Keen and others come tantalizingly close to "getting it," only to ultimately fall back on their Econ educations an fail to listen to those who know how to live *with* the rest of nature.
You should interview me as a counterpoint, a counter-balance to this Econ-centric approach to solving our problems. Or listen to my interviews with indigenous people and anthropologists about how people create regenerative economies.
The key role for economists in the shift from industrial to regenerative lies in negotiating the transition, not in determining where we end up. No economist is prepared to accurately describe that - not even Steve Keen, whom I consider the greatest living economist.
But he doesn't know anything at all about regenerative systems and so should be reaching out to those of us who do. As should you.
I don’t think it’s necessary to get depressed over the realization that neoclassical economics has underestimated the importance of energy and climate. I’m sure humans will do as they do regardless of what any dominant school of economics holds to be true. Mai pen rai!
Energy is impossible to ignore once it becomes less obtainable...
This is a really good discussion. Obviously, we can't go into the future using up our resources. On the other hand, must it not be true that the Universe's supply of energy is much, much greater than man's insatiable adverse? Excuse the climate change pun, but it boils down to living in fresh air, clean water, and peace.
@34:99 what’s the name he says there? 🙏
Please see show notes in description - and link to references on main podcast site. (But: William Nordhaus)
@@thegreatsimplification I didn’t realize your show notes are so detailed! Thanks for all you’re doing, Nate. I look forward to these conversations every week. I’m sure you’ve got guests lined up already for a while, but I would love to hear a deep dive into climate justice as social/racial justice. A topic that often gets lost in economic discussions.
Again, my many thanks for the excellent interviews.
YES! Carbon credits to the poor, on a credit card with the carbon consumer buying off the poor consumer...and the exchange rotates through a pool or "moneyshed". Our production of waste that is "housed in the atmosphere" as CO2 is the basis for the money.
Based Nate and Steve
You might want to talk to Anand Giridharadas.
At @ 40:30, Nate talks about the need for funding and research for a bio-physical model. NATE: It already exists. It always has. What fascinates me is you both acknowledge slower would have been better. (I was 12 when I realized we needed to slow down the implementation of technology because of the inefficiencies of having so many versions of the same thing - competition - and we badly impacting the planet already.) Then, when it comes to solutions you don't say, well, obviously we must look to Nature, you say, let's ask the PhDs! Jesus Christ...
So, You mentioned earlier energy and resource flows. Guess who understands those so well they have lived in harmony with their surrounding for hundreds, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of years? Intact indigenous communities. The biophysical model you seek? Regenerative Governance.
Quit ignoring me, and let's talk. There are patterns, principles, and characteristics. What we need is a map of the TRANSITION, not the ultimate solution. We already know what that *must* be.
This, although insightful, and in my view correct, reads like a tantrum.
@@kvaka009 Insightful tantrum? Why did you even post? Add something or support something, but just to whine? Good lord...
@@kkob I'm trying to provide a bit of feedback for you, since it seems like you have something to say. But you come across like like a lost cause, bitter and resentful for somehow not getting recognized for your self ascribed brilliance. Obviously you're beyond the feedback being useful. So there's nothing to add to someone who screeches about their own amazing insights, without actually providing such insights. So keep on keeping on buddy. Good luck to you getting all those "idiots to see how right you always were."
Hi Nate,
I wonder if you misspoke at about minute 32.35? You asked what if everyone understood.... That energy contributes as low as .6 to as high as ".1"... To the economy. Did you mean "1"? Can you add a text overlay or a dub in if needed. It seems to me it is your main point, so I'm eager to see your message reach as many people as possible.
Yes if I said .1 I meant 1 (or 100%). Can’t change the vid but will add to notes. Important error. Thank you
Seems to me Neoclassical economics was never about economics and more about it being a usefully strategic obsfuscation employed by smartly suited carpet baggers.
Nicely put.
Folder of time
29:26 (arrived here) what to attribute growth to
Brilliant and incisive analysis… until we get to Musk on Mars. It’s been said ad nauseum, but it seems it needs to be said again: if we haven’t solved our fundamental problems as humans here, how can you believe we will solve them anywhere else? You’re worried about losing the knowledge we have learned, Steve, but the most essential - the prosocial axioms, the applied principles of cooperative flourishing- we have NOT yet learned. All we’d be taking to Mars is our ignorance and psychopathologies.
Fighting yesterdays battles?
How many angels on the head of a pin?
"The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union."
consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/
Neel Kashkari is a good person??
If I were a benevolent dictator I would hand over my dictatorship to the physical world and allow that to dictate our actions.
47:00 Humanity has consumed half the fossil fuels ever created. The other half is in tar sands, permafrost, underwater drilling and other high cost ventures. The energy supply within the global market is bear.
hey, have you read nafeez ahmed's new "deep dive" paper, available on the club of rome website, called "The clean energy transformation: a new paradigm for social progress within planetary boundaries"? i'm hoping to see someone like you, or rachel donald dissect that paper, maybe with nafeez himself, if possible? i loved the books and articles of nafeez, but this one feels weird / unrealistic to me. it's really not clear how he imagines the trajectory he outlines in that report to happen outside the current capitalist structures. if you could do an episode with him, that'd be super awesome!!!
and of course, thanks for sharing this discourse; as always, i appreciate it!
After we deal with the monetary paradigm via gifting we need to politically utilize another aspect of the natural philosophical concept of grace, Redeemed/Redemptive Sovereignty to make and direct the wise decisions necessary to confront the problems of over consumption and energy. As mega a set of projects as the off planeting of most of production and mining the solar system for resources are, I don't see how we can shrink from them even if we solve fusion or find a way to technologize the energy of the quantum vacuum. I would only say that no matter what the problem, we need to heed the fact that Wisdom insights and paradigm changes are analogous phenomena in that they are the integration of opposites and thus even though they are fraught with paradox and seeming illogic they are also associated with "third way" solutions and major moments of human progress.
1:20 and he admits being an elon musk fanboy.. wtf..
This talk contains elements of Charles Hall's book "Energy and the Wealth of Nations." Let's hope we can develop an energy source as dense as either coal or oil for the future. Personally, I expect nuclear to play a more vital role in the future of energy.
It's not just the sources of energy we need, we also need entropy sinks. Degrowth is going to have to be part of how humanity deals with our predicament.
We could create any type of system to move, trade, and acquire products and services, that we could imagine.. Our current system is self destructive, violent, and undermines civilization itself and the living planet..We are millions of miles away from where we need to be with 8 billion people on the planet..Just the fact that we move mountains, go to space and the bottom of the oceans, but can't afford to save ourselves and the living planet, proves that this system is child like and needs to be replaced, and the term money should be eradicated from the language and consciousness...
Is burning too much Oxygen ever a concern?
Oxygen does not burn. Things burn in oxygen - it's called oxidation.
fusion is the only answer. it's where all our effort should go.
There's no financial overshoot in the way the host describes. Central bankers decide the risk free rate in their own meetings and aren't beholden to the private bond market.
when he says dont go past 2 degrees....thats celcius...2 degrees is about 6 degrees farenheit..
A 2 degree C increase is more like a rise of about 3.6 F…
What is your definition of economic growth, and, hence, of the economy?
www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
@@thegreatsimplification Not understanding what the economy is, is the fundamental flaw of economics.
😎
The rising prosperity in the United States that began following the end of the Second World War occurred because so much of the rest of the world was in chaos. The seeds of the eventual downturn existed but the effects were mitigated by the massive infusion of Federal spending along with the temporary increased unionization of workers able to gain improvements in wages and benefits by collective bargaining. The end came with the escalating prices of fossil fuels orchestrated by the oil-producing nations. This occurred on top of escalating prices of land and natural resources, generally. From the late 1970s on the real (i.e., inflation adjusted) income of the bottom 70-80 percent of began to fall and continued to fall.
The next devastating change occurred with the so-called "Reagan revolution." The reduction in marginal tax rates on individual income and business profits accelerated the process of income and wealth concentration at the top of the population. Deregulation of the financial services sector carried this to even further extremes.
What must be done to create real "equality of opportunity" in the United States? There are two reforms absolutely necessary to turn things around. First, local governments (town, city, borough, townships, and counties) and school districts need to scrap the conventional way to raise public revenue in favor of a single tax. This single tax is to be imposed on any private individual or entity owning land in a community. The amount of the tax needs to be as close as possible to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held. All buildings need to be exempted from the tax base. This change will have to be implemented over a period of years (say, a decade). Each year the rate of taxation on the assessed value of land would be increased, and the rate imposed on the assessed value of buildings increased. Property assessments must be updated each year based on current market data. If the property tax generates sufficient revenue, other taxes should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated.
At the federal level the individual income tax must be simplified and made progressive. First, exempt all individual incomes up to the national median. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt income level, impose and increasing rate of income on higher ranges of income. What we know to be true is that very high incomes are DERIVED from special privileges under law and from speculation, not from the production of needed goods and services. Remember that the U.S. economy did quite well when the highest marginal tax rate was over 80 percent.
Thirdly (but not finally, as even more needs to be done), replace the business profits tax with a graduated tax on gross income. Exempt some level of business revenue from taxation. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt amount impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of revenue.
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
the machine of human civilization keeps going faster....more births...bigger machines...more drilling...more burning...more suburbs...more plastics...24 hours per day every day the huge diesel motors are running......you do the math....ya think we have much time left....?,,,,you can discuss money and economy all you want but real real soon money wont mean anything and scrambling just for survival will be the order of the day.
The base of the land food chain is insects; in the California central valley only ~10% insects compared to 50 years ago. The Plankton at the base of the ocean's food chain is likewise greatly diminished. Does humanity think Earth can survive with just livestock and crops?
@@EvolutionWendy yes, and permanent smartphone upgrades.
@@liamhackett513 A mobile device or computer is a system of integrated components, one can remove small bits of the system and it will still limp along for a while. Same with the Earth.
@@EvolutionWendy Absolutely false. Even working as a developer for software, I can tell you that the components interact with certain propietary firmware specifications that radically transform how programs are written and computed. That radical change in itself makes certain components especially in GPUs incompatible with other devices to the point that the whole device will not turn on. That does not even factor if you have language instructions that can do computations that match the correct architecture of the system hardware and kernels.
"At least half the planet reserved for non human life forms". I don't know, would it be possible to leave Mother Nature maybe 80% untouched instead? Gaia has been doing her thing before we showed up, and will continue after we are gone. Not sure if She "owes" us anything. Let alone half the planet. Haven't done the math to see what's workable. Just thinking. It's essential to view Nature is preeminent. It is ultimately Her World, no?
I am a Scientist... Love Nate and Keene. But am also an unapologetic Gaian. I don't think Nature gets the respect, protection or reverence She obviously deserves. This is HER planet. We should be learning from Her. We should be here working with Her to make the World and Biosphere more resilient, productive, diverse, inhabitable, and anti-fragile. For other species and our own. This may be the "mission" and "birth right" we have been neglecting for so long. Causing for all these catastrophes, waste, unnecessary suffering and death.
I think maybe cultivating these attitudes and values may be helpful in these spaces? Give us motivation and PURPOSE. REAL PURPOSE, even Community we can commit to and draw strength from. Not the counterproductive false, lonely, hopeless, despair, or nihilism that seems to permeate in these important social/intellectual spaces. I KNOW fighting for the benefit and continuation of The Natural World is a cause worth working and fighting for. I cannot think of anything more important. Nothing more worthy of committing my time, energy, intellect and creative gifts toward.
Sorry. seems after Steve's talk - some positive motivation may be helpful?
Agree absolutely!
I agree with you: my preferred level of the planet reserved for Nature is 80% too. But that implies a huge reduction in human population and consumption, and it would freak people out even more than saying 50% does.
Nate come see real economics realized on my farm. Infinite solar energy being stored in the soil with all waste reincorporated
What are you guys talking about. Everyone is expanding natural gas production like mad and there's a LOT of it. Starting this year we will see a lot of new capacity come online
Questioning Faith's like it's 😎.
Mad Max is coming. Or see 'The Coming Plague' by Laurie Garrett published 1994 with her other work. Often in great human crisis as with the Black Death nature intervenes though now our ability to process vaccines...
economic charts are diagrams not true graphs. economic diagrams about money aren't graphs because money doesn't act like the phenomena of physics. mass and energy are conserved; money is not. mass and energy are cardinal; prices are ordinal.
Ask heterodox economists and engineers how to solve our problems???? STEVE! What the everloving hell? That is a bizarre statement. You have built a career by saying Economics is basically nonsense. You state clearly biophysical considerations are most important. You say there are limits. THEN you say ask economists and engineers, both of who ignore everything you've just said, what to do about it.
Wow.
No, Steve, just no. Completely wrong. I realize you are setting yourself and other heterodox economists apart from neo-classical economics, but as you learned from me in 2010, an now base your steady-state model on, you must make the energy flows work. HOWEVER, what you have so far failed to understand is that it is the MICRO that creates the macro, and economics, as you have said many, many times, is primarily concerned with the macro. I.e., you have already unknowingly acknowledged Economics, and the macro scale of designing a society, cannot be the pathway to regenerativeness.
Regenerative systems designers (intact indigenous communities, permaculturists, et al.) have long known that you must fully integrate the macro and micro. Until you learn how to model the micro, you cannot possibly develop viable models for society.
But you don't need to. We've already done it. All you need to do is listen.
I hate neoliberalism. I can't understand what this guy is talking about. He's not speaking for the layman. I've listened to many talks by matt Stoller, Guy Standing, Michael Hudson,Bill Black all experts in economics and inveterate enemies of neo-liberalism, they all make their arguments without going into abstruse jargon you need to be an economics major to even comprehend. As Matt Stoller writes FDR read 30 some economists reports on the great depression. FDR said not one of them agree and all of them entirely written in jargon. It's pisses me off, cause I'd love nothing more than to understand how neo-liberalism is a flaming crock of shit
Maybe read and get educated so that your knowledge base goes above and beyond that of a lay person. Most westerners especially the USA have a paternalistic mindset that people owe them knowledge and have to figure all life's problems for them especially when in today's age most of the information can be found in public libraries and on the web. Maybe that is why most Americans get the kind of leaders whom operate at almost the same kind of though process as the citizens merely because of that mentality of refusing to acquire knowledge in an area of speciality to eventually connect the dots and rather default to politicians influenced by neoliberal economists to reassure them unreal optimistic visions of the future to satisfy the fragile emotional state of the masses.
@@georgeokello8620 well okay, so you insinuated that am and most Americans are completely boors. You don't know anything about me.. economics in particular is based on theory because it's not actually a Stem subject. And as this channel as opined, if I had taken the time to learn economics it would have be a complete waste of time since neo classical economics is voodoo to justify the acquisition of mammon by the ruling class. Furthermore PMC douche, it's not my responsibility to learn the jargon primarily created to delibrately wield language as a weapon of class, as your attempting to put me in my place now, as some kinda of imagined superior. No the masses haven't and can't follow an abstruse field that takes years of unproductive activity to be proficient in, and in your case, especially because it's entirely based on unsubstantiated theories with no grounding in STEM whatsoever, and without the cultural depth of the humanity. Basically you can't and won't, nor do you actually want to the public to be adroit in your BS argot. So that's a non argument. So that leaves you believe your dressing down an inferior. Um yeah. Go fuck yourself, colonel dipshit. (left handed salute)
@@georgeokello8620 Iz not wastin more time to edit this for you either
Everyone had their own style and approach. Keen is very rigorous at giving an analysis that combines heterodox economics and systems theory. If those are unclear, then Keen is def difficult to listen to. Still worth trying imo.
The madhatter is the opposite of simplify. He's nuts but makes it so complicated you can't tell.
1177 BC
"...they're aware that they're not crazy."
Saying the Chinese would accept rationing and the Americans wouldn't is no praise, I am sorry to say.
Both ideas have embedded nightmares and injustices.
Rationing of general consumption to stave off catasprophe makes sense. We would need to vote for it.
Scientists taking charge had better not be captured by special interests, as is the case of big pharma and the revolving door of oversight and crushing of dissidents.
Banning advertising where Satan conjures up false desires would be a start in fostering waste reduction.
The clothes turnover alone evokes the alternative image of a commie cadre's once a year cloth allocation to reduce land fill. Creative people could tart up their uniforms.
In the 60s people made do with basic furniture. A piece of long pine on two cement blocks created a book shelf as part of delayed consumption.
There was less instant gratification.
Emphasising the harms of natural resource and habitat destructiion and plastics would better persuade people to accept less consumption than climate fears.
The latter does not fully concentrate minds of many still adapting to weather changes.
If that's the fix I might as well surrender to the WEF today.
I hear Steve Keen talking as though capitalism can be tuned, adapted. I doubt it. A system based on industrial transformation of natural materials into stuff that distracts and entertains has produced our culture. Where is something that looks 100 thousand years ahead - properly long term? I think the human response will be reactive - green delusions, electric car fantasies, carbon offsets, wars, refugee isolation. We will only get the message when capitalism collapses because the economics fail and we are left cold and hungry. Then we are back to where we started - human labor and land and plants and animals. I wonder if capitalism was a distraction from the fear of death - a dream of escape from nature into a glittering human-created world of things, images, colors, medical technology and mastery over nature.
He addresses this and say that if we don’t retain our knowledge and technology, we will deindustrialize where a possibility is a Mad Max like dystopia. He also says that government needs to be driving not the market, but this doesn’t mean that all market-based mechanisms are eliminated.
@@viraltarpara1704 Steve is expressing a hope, not making a promise. I suspect we will de-industrialize one way or another as the natural environment caves in and we concentrate on local survival. Just now the garbage truck came by to take tons of rubbish to landfill. Industrialization of any kind, including capitalist industrialization, requires waste because it produces continually. We have had 250 years of industrialization and the planet is in trouble - I ask, can that continue for another 100,000 years?
Your view about Luddites is ridiculous. The Luddites were technologists because they had to be.
From first principles economists measure value based on money... the real sciences use measurable objective units of measure. Money value is highly subjective and so open to fudging. Not a science in the true sense of the word.
Typical Steve Keen interview where he pretends to explain while the other side pretends to understand. One can not drink from a fire hose.
Much better to have an underground silo on earth for humans. Mars is totally fanciful and Elon is totally incapable in any case.
labor -> slavery
aka "free gift"
Yuck…nothing new or useful in this conversation!
Spin spin spin. Nate Hagens guy could wash clothes. If you want to tax people into a future of death, this is who you would follow. He forgets the 1600s-1900s were more or less gasoline oil free yet we were beginning the industrial revolution. Not going to say he's and Idiot but just shy of one. Thumbs Down.
The early industrial revolution was powered by coal. Beginning with the introduction of the steam engine by James watt in the 1760s
You do realize gasoline and oil aren't the only fossil fuels right?
"What if everyone understood, that energy is high at .1 as low as .6" Right. What if everyone understood that. I'll tell you what if everyone understood that, the whole world all be econ grad students
Nope. It's just the point that growth in economy has a 1 to 1 relation with increase in energy use and energy waste. Infinite exponential growth = overshoot & collapse. It's thar simple at the end of the day.