https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2019/12/07/159-the-perils-of-equilibria/
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2019/12/20/160-new-years-revolutions/
rogerglewis
on December 25, 2019 at 8:11 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi David,
Its an excellent question and also one which Tim has addressed up to a point here before.https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/129-why-what-how/#comment-7389
drtimmorgan
on June 28, 2018 at 8:21 am said:
Thanks Roger.I think we can start with the observation that what conventional economics should measure – but doesn’t – is prosperity. The article explains how SEEDS calculates it.
There are two points I’d make now. First, prosperity determines material satisfaction, not least because it reduces stress and worry, so this has political repercussions, and goes a long way to explain why the “unpopulists” are losing out.
Second, prosperity decides how able people are to carry financial burdens, most obviously debt, but ‘social burdens’ too, such as health, education, care for the elderly and defence.
From this, it follows that any school of economics which cannot measure prosperity effectively is of very little use. I think that recognition of this is now dawning on the ‘customers’ of economics – including government, businesses and finance.
What I’m looking at now is the remarkable predicament of China. Countries like the US and the UK typically add to debt at rates of between 5% and 6% of GDP annually – not satisfactory, of course, and far higher than growth, so not a sustainable model. But China, albeit with growth in the range 6% to 7%, borrows more than 30% of GDP each year. That is totally unsustainable – and has been happening for ten years.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/05/19/126-whats-next-for-seeds/
drtimmorgan
on March 7, 2018 at 2:39 pm said:
With ECoE by fuel group, you need to remember that the energy used in contructing renewables equipment comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.I look at every information source that I can, trying to avoid anything that looks like lobbying. Taking PV just as an example, there are some arguments that it will never cover its energy costs, and others saying it’ll almost “too cheap to meter”.
As you may know, I’m convinced that big commercial and official organisations are going to need to build something like SEEDS as conventional models become ever less useful. I’m not going to hand them the information to do that. So that’s why I publish ECoEs by fuel groups, but not by fuel types – it gives readers what they need, but doesn’t enable someone to build something like SEEDS.
@David Hughes on December 20, 2019 at 11:13 pm said:
Just wondering how you calculated your ECoE and where the data came from. Thanks.We do Christmas on Christmas Eve in Sweden. Christmas Day is a Chillax day as is Boxing Day. This is kind of appropriate today and here in many ways.
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2018/05/19/whats-next-for-seeds-shifting-from-gdp-to-prosperity/
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2019/11/24/the-economic-oil-nexus-eon-part-1-why-have-low-oil-prices-and-various-economic-stimuli-over-the-past-several-years-failed-to-restore-global-economic-growth/
Don Stewart on December 22, 2019 at 1:38 am said:
Geoffrey Chia on Peak Oil and Economic Collapse
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2019/11/24/the-economic-oil-nexus-eon-part-1-why-have-low-oil-prices-and-various-economic-stimuli-over-the-past-several-years-failed-to-restore-global-economic-growth/This was published about a month ago. I probably read his article a few years ago on Bardi’s blog, but had forgotten about it. In a nutshell, in this article, after spending some time lambasting nitwits, he tries to explain why low oil prices have not stimulated a genuine economic recovery. His answer (oversimplified by me) is that the previous GFC destroyed demand from the middle class. Supply and demand curves still work, so reduced demand equals lower price.
If we consider ShadowStat’s inflation numbers as real, and the hedrnically adjusted and massaged official numbers as fiction, then look at the destruction aimed at the middle class:
*hollowing out of the bonds backing pensions
*hollowing out of stocks backing pensions as companies purchase their own shares using borrowed money
*failure of social security payments to match the real cost of inflation
*the continued retail apocalypse…which cannot be explained away by Amazon
*failure of wages to rise anywhere near the level of real inflationWhen I look at that list, it gives me some confidence that Chia is providing a plausible explanation. Falling interest rates may have prevented total collapse, but they have not created organic growth. He looks to falling EROI for conventional oil as the underlying factor.
Don StewartReply ↓
- austrianpeteron December 22, 2019 at 10:14 am said:Many thanks Don, great article and exactly as Tim describes in his book – the chart is exactly the same! i wonder where they got it?
- rogerglewison December 25, 2019 at 9:02 am said:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
That’s an interesting Web site and the article is also interesting two glaring missing questions are State Licensing of Oil Extraction and also State Taxation of the Product along with State privatisation of the FIAT Currency Unit as Debt.Stripping out Oil Taxation from EROI and Prosperity measures, This will make the real underlying EROI evident and also bring light on the question of the Dynamic between the Economic Unit of currency ( FIAT) and the State choice of FIAT based world economies to accept sanctioning the privatised FIAT money System.https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/12/08/159-the-perils-of-equilibria/What are the economic principles of taxation?
Hi, Tim Seasons Greetings.
On the post, I do not think it is one of your best.
It says that seeds predicts all of this and then gives a straightforward monetary analysis.
I find this disappointing. I am going to download the resources and look for the correlations you are claiming but which you have not explained here.One glaring point missing from your analysis, even though you give per capita GDP and Debt figures are that wealth redistribution and increased inequality is not stripped out of your figures.
I have become increasingly persuaded that the precariat is a matter of political Design and not some accident or necessity due to energy constraint realities. I believe it is explained by the oldest cause of want and that is the greed of a corrupted elite.Let’s Look at Norway. Brino is a deceased Norweigan Blue. Yet Corbyn’s sit on the fence “Credible leave Option”, points to a revival of the dead Norwegian Parrot. #EUMilitaryUnion and the Norwegian Option? #TwoFingers2Brino #4Pamphleteers @GrubStreetJorno @Survation @wiki_ballot @financialeyes #WIKIBALLOTPICK #IABATO #SAM #GE2019 Roger Lewis ( Porthos) @JoeBlob20 @GloriaDePiero
rogerglewis Uncategorized December 11, 2019 12 MinutesWiki_Ballot
@wiki_ballot
David James, Baron James of Blackheath #EUMilitaryUnification @ukcolumn https://www.bitchute.com/video/zRZMTnxrlDEb/ … #BitChuteTonefreqhz
David James, Baron James of Blackheath #EUMilitaryUnification @ukcolumnbitchute.com
9:45 AM – Dec 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Wiki_Ballot’s other Tweets
Why did Theresa May allegedly turn down the EU offer of a ‘free-trade’ deal with Europe?
Keith Young
Keith Young, studied History at Birbeck College, University of London
Answered Nov 28, 2018
I am not sure she did. However, a free trade deal was always a possibility (and still is).She did not want a free trade deal because she wanted to be in the single market and customs union, because she is a Remainer. What she tried to negotiate was access to the single market and customs union without membership. The end result is a deal to remain in the EU but with no say in EU policy. This is why Remainers are claiming (correctly) this is worse than Remain. It is a dog’s breakfast that will be rejected by parliament. I doubt the majority against will be much under 200. The more she advoca…How Norway Does State Oil and Political Economy COntrasted with the UK Neo-Liberal Experiment is quite fruitful.These 3 posts together will go into the excellent report called Drilling into Debt.https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2018/04/20/the-black-and-the-green-debt-oil-and-arms-zionist-imperialism-and-international-banking/
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2011/01/DrillingIntoDebt.pdf
THE SURPLUS ENERGY ECONOMY – CONTEXT AND CHOICE
One of the things that used to puzzle me, as a very small boy, was why the day after Christmas was called “Boxing Day”.
Did people in the classic “Dickensian Christmas” – in the era evoked by traditional festive icons like snow, holly and robins – really set aside a day for pugilism? It seemed even less likely that a day of fist-fighting contests formed any part of the first Christmas.
All became clear, of course, when it was explained to the very young me that this was the day on which Christmas “boxes” (gifts) were exchanged. In those times, people drew a distinction between the Christian celebration, on 25th December, and the giving and receiving of presents, on the following day.
This distinction is even more pronounced here in Spain, where the exchange of gifts is deferred to the “Night…
View original post 1,457 more words
