In many affluent countries, the new century brought a shift in the long-term trajectory of electricity prices: they have increased not only in the monies of the day but even after adjustments for inflation. Even so, electricity remains an admirable bargain—though, as expected, a bargain with many national peculiarities, resulting not only from specific contribution by different sources but also from persistent governmental regulation.
Historical perspective shows the trajectory of an extraordinary value, and that explains electricity’s ubiquity in the modern world. When adjusted for inflation (and expressed in constant 2019 monies), the average price of US residential electricity fell from $4.81 per kilowatt-hour in 1902 (the first year for which the national mean is available) to 30.5 cents in 1950, then to 12.2 cents in 2000; and in early 2019 it was just marginally higher, at 12.7 cents/kWh. This represents a relative decline of more than 97 percent—or, stated in reverse, a dollar now buys nearly 38 times more electricity than it did in 1902. But, during that period, average (again, inflation-adjusted) manufacturing wages nearly sextupled, which means that in a blue-collar household, electricity is now more than 200 times more affordable (its effective earning-adjusted cost is less than 0.5 percent of the 1902 rate) than it was almost 120 years ago.
“Because literally none of the goods and services which comprise the economy could be produced without energy, it should hardly be necessary to point out that the economy is an energy system. Equally, it should be obvious that, whenever energy is accessed for our use, some of that energy is always consumed in the access process. This access component is known here as the Energy Cost of Energy (ECoE), and it forms a critical part of the equation which determines our prosperity.”
Thank you for another interesting post Dr Morgan.
Does SEEDS offer any insight into how the rate at which energy is accessed by the economy affects our prosperity?
For example, shale appears to have increased the rate at which chemical energy can be accessed by the economy relative to the economy’s ability to use it (i.e. convert that chemical energy to other forms of energy) and so the monetary price of oil has fallen even as the ECoE has risen.
The economy appears to change the way it uses energy more rapidly in response to the monetary price of oil that it does in response to rising ECoE. Some of the changes in response to a lower price of oil appear to exacerbate the effects of rising ECoE. How can economic actors look beyond the oil price?
It is interesting but not wholly surprising to me that Dr. Tim Morgan has not answered this “Confounding” question showing the inconvenient truth in Dr. Morgans Seeds analysis. Seeds is something of a black box , we are not allowed to look under the hood of Dr. Morgans claims that Energy Cost of energy (ECOE) is acting as a hard limit to the prospect of prosperity in the world economy.
This question from Will, shows how far short Dr Morgans analysis comes up in answering the Balance between the effects of Finance and the Financialised Economy over the real Energy availability questions. The shortcomings in Dr. Morgan’s analysis encompass Ignorance of Technological innovation and invention and in short, the massive trend we see of actors in the modern economy’s ability to do more with less as per pro current technology and energy mixes.
#153. One for the sceptics
Rather depressing reading in the comments if that sort of thing gets you down.
SEEDS is a part of the solution to the current problem. I personally think, as you know, that Seeds needs to be coupled with an embodied energy index that will then translate to an empirically falsifiable value scale for the pricing of monetary exchanges.
Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky walk into a bar
Heisenberg looks around the bar and says, “Because there are three of us and because this is a bar, it must be a joke. But the question remains, is it funny or not?”
And Gödel thinks for a moment and says, “Well, because we’re inside the joke, we can’t tell whether it is funny. We’d have to be outside looking at it.”
And Chomsky looks at both of them and says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”
Steve in Ottawa
April 27, 2019 7:40 am
I’m just going to throw this out there for consideration:
Everything in this physical world has to satisfy physical law. EROEI is just a restatement of the second law of thermodynamics. Locally, I can consume someone else’s energy and not account for it in my ledger. Globally, all local energy ledgers have to add up or else a physical law is being violated.
with the starting point running through (0, 0), not (20,000, 10,000) as it does in figure 7, i.e. No energy, no GDP is a fundamental physical boundary condition.
In principle, in a fully free market, since the price (in constant dollars) of any good or service contains all the economic information about that good or service, once you know the price of money, in joules, you can simply convert the price of the good or service into joules. From there you can immediately see how much energy a particular good or service costs and if it’s an energy supply (wind, solar etc) you can calculate how much it produces. From there you know if it is a drain (Jout/Jin 1). In other words EROEI.
Obviously, there isn’t a fully free market, so locally prices don’t necessarily reflect the true energy cost, but globally, GDP and Energy consumption must equal the sum of all the local monetary and energy expenditures.
Anyway, that’s how I see it. If it stimulates new thoughts on the subj of energy and money, great.
2. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE INDUSTRY?
Most readers have already been through one financial crisis, and have a good idea what a
similar one would look like for their company. Some of the impacts experienced in the last
run-through would include:
1. Decline in exposures. If this occurs over the long term, it can be expected to put
upward pressure on expense ratios.
2. Better auto insurance experience. If oil prices are higher, there is less discretionary
driving, and claim experience improves.
3. Poor homeowners experience. More vacant homes, more homes that homeowners
plan to give back to the bank shortly, declining property values.
4. Terrible loss experience on financial guarantee insurance, and very poor loss
experience for mortgage guarantee insurance.
5. Very poor investment income.
6. Declining valuations of some investments, such as CDOs, and more bond defaults.
7. Poor workers compensation experience, through the period of layoffs and lower
payrolls.
Pretty much all of the foregoing list can be tied to higher oil prices, higher debt defaults,
the resulting credit contraction, and the ensuing recession. As debt defaults rose, credit
availability was cut back, leading to a further reduction in spending, and more layoffs. With
layoffs, more people defaulted on their mortgages, and prices on homes tended to drop.
There was a flight to safety on investments, and government interest rates especially tended
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Transitions-History-Requirements-Prospects/dp/0313381771 Bituminous coals and lignites reached the highest share of the global fuel con- sumption, at about 55% of the total, during the century’s second decade. Even though coal’s importance declined to less than 50% of all fuel energies by the late barring some extraordinary and entirely unprecedented financial commitments and determined actions—none of today’s promises for greatly accel- erated energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies will be realized. A world without fossil fuel combustion is highly desirable and (to be optimistic) our collective determination, commitment, and persistence could hasten its arrival—but getting there will exact not only a high financial and organizational cost but also persistent dedication and considerable patience. As in the past, the coming energy transitions will unfold across decades, not years—and a few facts are as important for appreciating energy prospects of modern civilization as is an informed appreciation of this reality. This, in just half a dozen paragraphs, is the book’s raison d’être.
1940s, the fuel remained the world’s most important source of fossil energy, and hence the leading primary fuel, until 1964 when its contribution was surpassed by crude oil. By 1970 coal and crude oil supplied, respectively, about 30% and 40% of all fuel energy, by 1980 the relative gap had widened marginally to roughly 29% and 41% and by the century’s end the two fossil fuels provided, respectively, about 25% and 37% of all fuel energies (Figure 2.14). Recall that all of these comparisons exclude the non-energy products and hence the oil shares presented here are lower than those calculated (commonly but inaccur- ately) by using gross energy content of crude oil.
We can see from Slide 6 that whenever there is no red area above the blue area (flat living standards or flat energy per capita), adverse events seem to happen.
For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) came at a time of low energy consumption growth. The Great Depression of the 1930s came during another period of low energy consumption per capita growth. World War I came at the beginning of this period, and World War II came at the end. The collapse of the central government of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in a decade of low world energy consumption growth, in part because of the loss of the central currency of the Soviet Union.
The “China Coal” note at the end pertains to the way that China and its coal supply has helped pull the world economy forward since 2001. This benefit seems to be already declining.
The thing with oil companies is this. Their job is to get investors to pay them to get oil out of the ground, and they’ll tell all sorts of silly stories in order to do so. That’s never changed. What changed is the market environment created by central banks’ policies which destroyed yield, thus pushing investors to seek it elsewhere. And so, while they were hunting for it, the market “delivered a solution”.
Let me show you. I’ll take you back to late 2017.
From this article.
“Today, you can grow the company at 5%, at $40-oil,” said Pioneer Executive Chairman and CEO Scott Sheffield. He compared the potential of the Permian to Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia. “You could easily see 8 to 10 MMbpd out of the Permian by 2027.” He went on to say that the Permian could contain an estimated total of 160-170 Bbbl of recoverable oil.
The Russian Ruble currency and the Chinese Yuan together currently make up less than 2 % of global foreign currency holdings in central banks. That is a tiny number — not much more than the Australian Dollar representation.
ENERGY PRICE COLLAPSE COMING?In general, BOOM likes Gail Tverberg’s macro analyses that she publishes at her website called Our Finite World. Gail’s usual approach is that financial system failure will lead to energy supply problems (not the other way around) and that such a sequence of events will subsequently cause lots of failure in other areas of the advanced economies.
OPEC was not the first price organization set up explicitly to
manage oil prices: it was modelled on the Texas Railroad
Commission, a state agency that began to regulate railroads in
1891 and added responsibilities for the regulation of the oil and
gas industry in 1919. After the discovery of the East Texas field
brought a precipitous fall in oil prices the commission was given
the right, in 1931, to control the state’s oil production through
prorated quotas in the form of a monthly production allowance
that set the permissible percentage of maximum output. With
Texas being the country’s largest oil producer and the US
dominating global oil output (with Texas producing more than
half of the world’s crude) this right amounted to a very effective
cartel of worldwide importance run by an obscure state agency.
The greatest challenge for OPEC is to keep the price below
the level that would lead to a substantial drop in demand for oil,
to increased hydrocarbon exploration in non-OPEC countries
and to government-subsidized investment towards alternative
energy sources. In its public pronouncements OPEC repeatedly
professes its commitment to a stable oil market and security
of supply, but its actions have often had the very opposite effect.
And, quite inexplicably, those who forecast an imminent
peak of global oil production and a rapid end of the oil era
completely ignore fundamental, and proven, economic realities
and assume that future demand is immune to any external
factors. This is patently false: an indisputable peak followed by
precipitous decline in production would not trigger an
unchecked bidding for the remaining oil but would rather accel-
erate an ongoing shift to other energy sources. OPEC learned
this lesson in the early 1980s when record high prices were
followed not only by the decline of oil’s share in global energy
supply but also by an absolute decline in global oil demand and
a drastic fall in price (by about 60% for an average OPEC barrel
between 1981 and 1986).
As already explained (see chapter 1) that cut in demand was a
result of powerful technical adjustments that were triggered by
high oil prices – and similarly enormous opportunities for oil
savings in road transport remain untapped. All we have to do is
to resume the adjustments that were set aside by a generation of
post-1984 low oil prices. These realities led Sheikh Ahmed Zaki
Yamani, a former Saudi oil minister, to remark that high prices
will only hasten the day when OPEC will be left with
untouched fuel reserves because new efficient techniques could
cut deeply into the demand for automotive fuels and lead to
non-oil alternatives, leaving much of the Middle Eastern oil in
the ground forever.
Eclipse Now on January 12, 2017 at 7:21 am said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this article seems predicated upon a ‘peak energy’ belief system? Peak energy is a myth. Breeder reactors can provide all the abundant, reliable, clean electricity we could need, and that can revolutionise the transport system as well.
drtimmorganon January 12, 2017 at 9:05 am said:
No, it is not predicated on “peak oil” (etc). The peakniks’ theories have been answered by the cornucopians, who have supplied the right answer……….to the wrong question.
Starting with fossil fuels, they will not “run out”. But what they are alreay doing is becoming more expensive, not necessarily in USD, GDP etc but in the ratio between gross energy accessed versus net energy after deduction of energy consumed in the access process. Renewables are improving on this ratio just as fossil fuels are worsening, so these are converging – but not at levels equivalent to the abundant, low-cost resources of the past.
#128: GFC II
@djerek
on June 7, 2018 at 3:58 am said:
“Solutions for an “abundance economy” aren’t going to help us as we enter an age of scarcity.”
I would like to see the evidence regarding Material scarcity. Regarding Peak Energy, we are still at a high level of output although the expense EROEI for the historically very cheap Oil extraction is clear in the evidence from SEEDS.
On Output generally I think there is an Abundance but we have a distribution and accounting problem.
These I have suggested can be tackled in the following stages.
The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)
Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.
Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.
World average prosperity per capita has declined only marginally since 2007, essentially because deterioration in the West has been offset by continued progress in the emerging market (EM) economies. This, though, is nearing its point of inflexion, with clear evidence now showing that the Chinese economy, in particular, is in very big trouble.
7. Hidden behind increasingly desperate (and dangerous) financial manipulation, the world as a whole has been getting poorer since ECoE hit 5.5% in 2007. As more of the EM economies hit the “downturn zone” (ECoEs of 8-10%), the so-far-gradual impoverishment of the average person worldwide can be expected to accelerate.
Who is your Average person worldwide? With Political Mathematics ( Statistics) it is important to define terms. Who is your constituency, Tim? Who are Agenda 21 and 2030 designed to raise up and at whose expense?
ESCHATOLOGY END TIMES PROPHESY
PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION
SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF EM AND KEEP EM POOR
CALVIN SAID Belloc characterised the Reformation as
´´a rising of the rich against the poor´´,
´and indeed Calvin had written the unfortunate statement:
´´The people must always be kept in poverty in order that they remain obedient´´.
8.This calls for a thoroughgoing review of energy policy, and it seems bizarre that a system which can provide financial support for the banking system cannot do the same for the far more important matter of energy.
A healthy Dose of Bucky Fullmeister is what is needed vis the Production function for modern Industry and Industrial Agriculture also a look back into the concepts of Localism and Subsidiarity.
GFC2, Ephemeralisation, Doing More With Less. Bucky Fullmeister and Circular Economy.
rogerglewis Uncategorized June 7, 2018 9 Minutes
Substantial excess manufacturing capacity
developed last year in the face of the slower
growth and will serve to put downward pressure on
inflation. Total industrial capacity of the nation’s
manufacturing, mining and utility companies was
77.3% in November, 2.3 percentage points less
than the peak reached about a year earlier and
at a lower level than when the economy entered
all of the recessions since 1970. Manufacturing
firms were operating at even a lower rate, 75.2%
late last year, compared to the post-1950 average
of 79.9%.
The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicates
that the industrial sector capacity use has moved
steadily lower for all OECD countries over the
past five years. The latest reading showed two
percentage points less capacity utilization than
the cyclical peak five years ago. This provides
confirmation that global manufacturing is in a
recession and is a contributing factor to the list
of reasons why disinflation is global.
The poor capacity use rates have
broad economic implications. They serve to
weaken corporate profits while simultaneously
undermining capital expenditures. Thus, poor
capital use rates reflect economic weakness while
contributing to a persistence of these conditions
in the future.
2020
These five factors – loss of momentum,
monetary restraint, high debt levels, flat profits
and excess capacity – will bring about slower
growth and continue to subdue core inflation in
2020. Over the past 65 years, yields on long dated
risk-free U.S. treasury securities moved in the
same direction as core inflation on an annual basis
roughly 80% of the time. We believe that there is
a high probability that this relationship will hold in
2020 as inflationary pressures continue to subside.
Van R. Hoisington
Lacy H. Hunt, Ph.D. https://hoisington.com/pdf/HIM2020Q4NP.pdf
The housing sector benefited substantially
from these policy actions, with the thirty-year
conventional mortgage yield dropping to an alltime low in December of 2.71%, almost 100 basis
point below the year earlier level. The rate decline
caused mortgage refinancings to increase about
113% over the year providing significant funds
for consumer spending and investment. However,
the lower rate structure reduces the revenue and
income of many financial intermediaries.
Despite this sectoral benefit from the easier
monetary policy, the macro-wide effects were
contained as the velocity of money fell 17.7%
in 2020 with velocity for the year averaging an
estimated 1.2, the lowest level since 1946 (Chart
4). With velocity falling, funds available for
financial investment surged as did prices in many
asset markets. The drop in velocity, however, is
consistent with the sharp decline in the marginal
revenue product of debt and suggests no longlasting inflationary consequences from the 2020
surge in M2.
In sum, considering economic destruction
placed on individuals and small businesses
by the virus and its resultant shutdowns, the
fact that fiscal expenditures have a negative
multiplier on macroeconomic conditions, the
debilitating impact on growth of excessive debt
and the restriction of the zero bound on monetary
stimulus, a secular inflation cycle is not at hand.
Since inflation is the primary determinate of the
yield on long dated U.S. government debt, it
remains our judgement that the bull run in 30-year
U.S. Treasurys is continuing.
Velocity of Money 1900-2020
Equation of Exchange: M*V = GDP
annual
Sources: Federal Reserve Board; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Bureau of the Census; The
Amercian Business Cycle, Gordon, Balke and Romer. Last plot is yearly average through Q3 2020.
Last plot is 2020 avg. Q3 2020; V = GDP/M, GDP = 21.2 tril, M2 = 18.5 tril, V = 1.1463
avg. = 1.72
Lowest since 1946
Chart 4
Hoisington Management
11 The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore— 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble;13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves.
rogerglewis on August 8, 2019 at 6:52 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This article From Ellen Brown in Truth Dig puts the Chinese and US Trade war into a context, of the Japanese Crisis in 1997 ( For a full history of that Prof Richard Werenrs Film, Princes of the Yen is Essential Reading ( The Book, and the Film based upon the Book)
State-guided capitalism provided for the general welfare without destroying capitalist incentive. Engdahl wrote:
The Tiger economies were a major embarrassment to the IMF free-market model. Their very success in blending private enterprise with a strong state economic role was a threat to the IMF free-market agenda. So long as the Tigers appeared to succeed with a model based on a strong state role, the former communist states and others could argue against taking the extreme IMF course. In east Asia during the 1980s, economic growth rates of 7-8 per cent per year, rising social security, universal education and a high worker productivity were all backed by state guidance and planning, albeit in a market economy — an Asian form of benevolent paternalism.
Just as the U.S. had engaged in a Cold War to destroy the Soviet communist model, so Western financial interests set out to destroy this emerging Asian threat. It was defused when Western neoliberal economists persuaded Japan and the Asian Tigers to adopt a free-market system and open their economies and companies to foreign investors. Western speculators then took down the vulnerable countries one by one in the “Asian crisis” of 1997-8. China alone was left as an economic threat to the Western neoliberal model, and it is this existential threat that is the target of the trade and currency wars today.
Gives a Geo-Political view from the Fall of the Austro Hungarian Empire and Messrs Von Mises’, Von Hayeck’s and Schumpeter’s influences across the Jockeying for position in the Great Game of Monopoly Finance Capitalism.
“Neoliberalism is often conceived as a system of self-regulating markets, shrunken states and crudely rational individuals. Early neoliberals, however, didn’t believe in markets’ self-correcting properties. Instead, as Quinn Slobodian argues in Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, they were concerned above all with establishing governments, laws and institutions in which markets could be embedded in order to make them work as they should – not only at a national but at a global level.”
Mises saw himself as the ‘economic conscience’ of a civilisation on the verge of collapse. He recommended corporate tax cuts, balanced budgets, the violent repression of unions and the cutting of wages, which had risen as a result of the war and had to be reduced ‘far below their prewar level’ to restore competitiveness to Austrian industry on the world market. As finance minister, Joseph Schumpeter, his brilliant and erratic classmate at the University of Vienna, wanted to tackle inflation with a capital levy, which shocked Mises. When the socialist foreign minister, Otto Bauer, another former classmate, put forward a plan for limited state takeovers, Mises tried to sink it by arguing that central planning could never be implemented. Without markets to set prices, he said, there could be no efficient allocation of resources, no tallying of gains and losses; socialist management, he wrote later, would be ‘like a man forced to spend his life blindfolded’.
It is an often-quoted Aphorism, “Give me control of a Nations Money and I care not who makes its Laws”. The underlying battle here is for Democracy itself, which even at its best is a rather threadbare suit of emperors new clothes masking the Various Brands of Wage Slavery on offer under various Central Banking regimes.
Finally, the French Referendum of 1969 and De Gaulles resignation should be brought to mind
Recognition of the People’s Republic of China
In January 1964, France was, after the UK, among the first of the major Western powers to open diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which was established in 1949 and which was isolated on the international scene.[214] By recognizing Mao Zedong’s government, de Gaulle signaled to both Washington and Moscow that France intended to deploy an independent foreign policy.[214] The move was criticized in the United States as it seemed to seriously damage US policy of containment in Asia.[214] De Gaulle justified this action by “the weight of evidence and reason”, considering that China’s demographic weight and geographic extent put it in a position to have a global leading role.[214] De Gaulle also used this opportunity to arouse rivalry between the USSR and China, a policy that was followed several years later by Henry Kissinger’s “triangular diplomacy” which also aimed to create a Sino-Soviet split.[214]
France established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China – the first step towards formal recognition without first severing links with the Republic of China (Taiwan), led by Chiang Kai-shek. Hitherto the PRC had insisted that all nations abide by a “one China” condition, and at first it was unclear how the matter would be settled.[215] However, the agreement to exchange ambassadors was subject to a delay of three months, and in February, Chiang Kai-shek resolved the problem by cutting off diplomatic relations with France.[216] Eight years later, US President Richard Nixon visited the PRC and began normalising relations—a policy which was confirmed in the Shanghai Communiqué of 28 February 1972.[217]
As part of a European tour, Nixon visited France in 1969.[218] He and de Gaulle both shared the same non-Wilsonian approach to world affairs, believing in nations and their relative strengths, rather than in ideologies, international organisations, or multilateral agreements. De Gaulle is famously known for calling the UN the pejorative “le Machin”[219] (“the thingamajig”).
Reform Yes Shit in Bed No.
May 1968
Main article: May 1968 in France
De Gaulle’s government was criticized within France, particularly for its heavy-handed style. While the written press and elections were free, and private stations such as Europe 1 were able to broadcast in French from abroad, the state’s ORTF had a monopoly on television and radio. This monopoly meant that the government was in a position to directly influence broadcast news. In many respects, Gaullist France was conservative, Catholic, and there were few women in high-level political posts (in May 1968, the government’s ministers were 100% male).[248] Many factors contributed to a general weariness of sections of the public, particularly the student youth, which led to the events of May 1968.
The mass demonstrations and strikes in France in May 1968 severely challenged De Gaulle’s legitimacy. He and other government leaders feared that the country was on the brink of revolution or civil war. On 29 May, De Gaulle disappeared without notifying Prime Minister Pompidou or anyone else in the government, stunning the country. He fled to Baden-Baden in Germany to meet with General Massu, then head of the French military there, to discuss possible army intervention against the protesters. De Gaulle returned to France after being assured of the military’s support, in return for which De Gaulle agreed to amnesty for the 1961 coup plotters and OAS members.[249][250]
In a private meeting discussing the students’ and workers’ demands for direct participation in business and government he coined the phrase “La réforme oui, la chienlit non”, which can be politely translated as ‘reform yes, masquerade/chaos no.’ It was a vernacular scatological pun meaning ‘chie-en-lit, no’ (shit-in-bed, no). The term is now common parlance in French political commentary, used both critically and ironically referring back to de Gaulle.[251]
Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger, meaning ‘to direct’) is an economic doctrine in which the state plays a strong directive role, as opposed to a merely regulatory role, over a capitalist market economy.[1] As an economic doctrine, dirigisme is the opposite to laissez-faire, stressing a positive role for state intervention in curbing productive inefficiencies and market failures. Dirigiste policies often include indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the use of market instruments (taxes and subsidies).
Embedded energy in the circular economy is the key to building a monetary system that people as citizens and not as slaves can believe in. So its six impossible things before breakfast or the truth?
Hope without an object cannot live. Circular Economy, Energy and Debt
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate
Through me you go to the grief wracked city; Through me you go to everlasting pain; Through me you go a pass among lost souls. Justice inspired my exalted Creator: I am a creature of the Holiest Power, of Wisdom in the Highest and of Primal Love. Nothing till I was made was made, only eternal beings. And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope — Ye Who Enter Here
rogerglewis on January 6, 2022 at 1:07 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Happy new year Tim,
I have followed the blog for the past two years and I am disappointed that you are still shy about how you calculate your claims re “Peak Prosperity”
You say again in this post, this;
drtimmorgan
on January 3, 2022 at 8:47 am said:
Thanks Christopher. As I think this is your first comment, welcome.
“Part of the plan looking forward is to provide more resources, including stats. I like to think that we’ve ‘got the basics right’, giving us a good platform for developing and detailing our interpretation.”
I have followed the points raised by Erl Happs, I have to say Erl seems more bounded in empirical evidence than your die-hard catastrophist Limits the Growth devotees. For all the claims to efficacy for your own ECOE and Prosperity indexing, we really only have your word for it still, and real-world data shows that we are not living in the Dystopic future you claim is already here, at least not based upon the causes which you are espousing.
All I can say is I hope you make more progress with what was a promising start 4 years ago and to my own views has stagnated into something of a catastrophist echo chamber the past few years.
All Hail the Nail, something for the Seeds Hammer to tackle.
How Global Finance Really Works
Best
Roger
Steve Gwynne on January 6, 2022 at 10:10 pm said:
Excellent start to 2022 Tim and Happy New Year to All.
I also welcome the new influx of thinkers who are broadening the viewpoints on what is a very complex and contentious subject and therefore as much as possible, arguments need to be backed up with well sourced empirical evidence, including the near possibility of collapse.
I say this because socio-behavioural changes are rarely factored into rational modelling because they are so difficult to measure and account for. This I would include behavioural changes that are genetic, epigenetic or memetic in nature.
As I presently see it, current inflation is indeed being caused by supply constraints, ranging from labour skill shortages to supply chain bottlenecks and of course the rising energy cost of energy as both the energy system expands and therefore more expensive to mainten and as extraction costs becomes more expensive.
However, as far as I am aware there are no ‘hard’ raw material constraints (including energy), only ‘soft’ raw material constraints with regards to whats available on the open market.
So in my opinion, attributing inflation to ‘hard’ material constraints is premature and what really needs to be looked at is the ‘soft’ material constraints including the massive productivity gap of inadequate labour skills.
In other words, in my opinion, the systemic growth imperative has not reached its full potential by any stretch of the imagination. For example, high value commodity chains such as semiconductor microchip manufacture is experiencing a shortfall in the labour necessary to expand as is haulage and other essential sectors.
In fact I would go so far to say that what we are experiencing is not ‘hard’ limits to growth but a supply chain productivity crisis where supply is being constrained by a severe mismatch in labour skills or an inadequacy of labour skills, so that more raw materials can be processed and distributed.
In this respect, I would argue supply isn’t meeting demand because it is constrained by severe labour skill mismanagement whereby businesses can’t expand and grow because of labour shortages and a lack in the necessary skills.
The same might be said of the global energy system. Huge amounts of energy are being systematically mismanaged into activities that do not contribute towards productivity growth.
And then there is the empirical question of what actually remains of unmined fossil fuels with the Progressive green lobby adamant that growth should be sacrificed on the alter of climate change as if this is a decision that has already been made by an unelected chosen elite few, possibly to destabilise the global economy for political gain.
Overall, like the Robert Preston’s of the world, rather than accept the social just solution of the Warm Homes Discount which will add a mere £12 per year to the energy bills of the more affluent, the Progressive media emphasis is always on ‘crisis, crisis, crisis’ so that Progressive elites can continue with their chest beating performative politics.
In conclusion, the fact that there is abundant growth potential within our current system, by better allocating skills at the human level and better allocating resources into more productive activity means unproductive economic activities and unproductive economic lives need to be actively constrained unless it can be demonstrated that they have a high ecological value as an ecosystem service.
This means policy that doesn’t reward victimhood and economic unproductivity but policy that rewards ambition, adaptability and productivity, particularly in the private sector.
In my opinion, this would apply within a growth environment of soft material constraints, a post-growth environment of hard material constraints and a de-growth environment of politically imposed hard material constraints.
In this respect, if we are talking about prosperity, then everything should be about energy productivity, material productivity and human productivity in order to best maximise the utility of our hard and soft resource limits.
Reply to Steve Gwynne
And here endeth the lesson. Well said Steve Gwynne, that’s a perfect analysis of where we are at along with some of the Why?
Is the present “Collapse” Mangaged, Engineered, or an inevitability of Elitist Hubris?
I would argue its a combination of Premature transition management engineering, What’s known as the “Great Reset”
Presently though Central Bank Digital Currencies a new Going Direct solution to the misdiagnosed Banking collapse of the September 2019 New York repo rate spike is being implemented.
“The BlackRock plan calls for blurring the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy – exactly what the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are doing today in the United States. BlackRock has now been hired by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, and Sweden’s central bank, Riksbank, to implement key features of the plan. Three of the authors of the BlackRock plan previously worked as central bankers in the U.S., Canada and Switzerland, respectively.” https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/77171/blackrock-authored-the-bailout-plan-before-there-was-a-crisis%E2%80%93now-its-been-hired-by-three-central.html https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/06/01/fed-reveals-which-bond-etfs-it-purchased/
Steve Gwynne on January 6, 2022 at 10:10 pm said:
Excellent start to 2022 Tim and Happy New Year to All.
I also welcome the new influx of thinkers who are broadening the viewpoints on what is a very complex and contentious subject and therefore as much as possible, arguments need to be backed up with well sourced empirical evidence, including the near possibility of collapse.
I say this because socio-behavioural changes are rarely factored into rational modelling because they are so difficult to measure and account for. This I would include behavioural changes that are genetic, epigenetic or memetic in nature.
As I presently see it, current inflation is indeed being caused by supply constraints, ranging from labour skill shortages to supply chain bottlenecks and of course the rising energy cost of energy as both the energy system expands and therefore more expensive to mainten and as extraction costs becomes more expensive.
However, as far as I am aware there are no ‘hard’ raw material constraints (including energy), only ‘soft’ raw material constraints with regards to whats available on the open market.
So in my opinion, attributing inflation to ‘hard’ material constraints is premature and what really needs to be looked at is the ‘soft’ material constraints including the massive productivity gap of inadequate labour skills.
In other words, in my opinion, the systemic growth imperative has not reached its full potential by any stretch of the imagination. For example, high value commodity chains such as semiconductor microchip manufacture is experiencing a shortfall in the labour necessary to expand as is haulage and other essential sectors.
In fact I would go so far to say that what we are experiencing is not ‘hard’ limits to growth but a supply chain productivity crisis where supply is being constrained by a severe mismatch in labour skills or an inadequacy of labour skills, so that more raw materials can be processed and distributed.
In this respect, I would argue supply isn’t meeting demand because it is constrained by severe labour skill mismanagement whereby businesses can’t expand and grow because of labour shortages and a lack in the necessary skills.
The same might be said of the global energy system. Huge amounts of energy are being systematically mismanaged into activities that do not contribute towards productivity growth.
And then there is the empirical question of what actually remains of unmined fossil fuels with the Progressive green lobby adamant that growth should be sacrificed on the alter of climate change as if this is a decision that has already been made by an unelected chosen elite few, possibly to destabilise the global economy for political gain.
Overall, like the Robert Preston’s of the world, rather than accept the social just solution of the Warm Homes Discount which will add a mere £12 per year to the energy bills of the more affluent, the Progressive media emphasis is always on ‘crisis, crisis, crisis’ so that Progressive elites can continue with their chest beating performative politics.
In conclusion, the fact that there is abundant growth potential within our current system, by better allocating skills at the human level and better allocating resources into more productive activity means unproductive economic activities and unproductive economic lives need to be actively constrained unless it can be demonstrated that they have a high ecological value as an ecosystem service.
This means policy that doesn’t reward victimhood and economic unproductivity but policy that rewards ambition, adaptability and productivity, particularly in the private sector.
In my opinion, this would apply within a growth environment of soft material constraints, a post-growth environment of hard material constraints and a de-growth environment of politically imposed hard material constraints.
In this respect, if we are talking about prosperity, then everything should be about energy productivity, material productivity and human productivity in order to best maximise the utility of our hard and soft resource limits.
Reply to Steve Gwynne
And here endeth the lesson. Well said Steve Gwynne, that’s a perfect analysis of where we are at along with some of the Why?
Is the present “Collapse” Mangaged, Engineered, or an inevitability of Elitist Hubris?
I would argue its a combination of Premature transition management engineering, What’s known as the “Great Reset”
Presently though Central Bank Digital Currencies a new Going Direct solution to the misdiagnosed Banking collapse of the September 2019 New York repo rate spike is being implemented.
“The BlackRock plan calls for blurring the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy – exactly what the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are doing today in the United States. BlackRock has now been hired by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, and Sweden’s central bank, Riksbank, to implement key features of the plan. Three of the authors of the BlackRock plan previously worked as central bankers in the U.S., Canada and Switzerland, respectively.” https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/77171/blackrock-authored-the-bailout-plan-before-there-was-a-crisis%E2%80%93now-its-been-hired-by-three-central.html https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/06/01/fed-reveals-which-bond-etfs-it-purchased/
June 01, 2020 at 03:24 PM https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/06/01/fed-reveals-which-bond-etfs-it-purchased/?slreturn=20211117011846 https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/06/01/fed-reveals-which-bond-etfs-it-purchased/?slreturn=20211117011846 Severe backwardation in VIX vs VIX Futures....
test
Steve Gwynne on January 6, 2022 at 10:10 pm said:
Excellent start to 2022 Tim and Happy New Year to All.
I also welcome the new influx of thinkers who are broadening the viewpoints on what is a very complex and contentious subject and therefore as much as possible, arguments need to be backed up with well sourced empirical evidence, including the near possibility of collapse.
I say this because socio-behavioural changes are rarely factored into rational modelling because they are so difficult to measure and account for. This I would include behavioural changes that are genetic, epigenetic or memetic in nature.
As I presently see it, current inflation is indeed being caused by supply constraints, ranging from labour skill shortages to supply chain bottlenecks and of course the rising energy cost of energy as both the energy system expands and therefore more expensive to mainten and as extraction costs becomes more expensive.
However, as far as I am aware there are no ‘hard’ raw material constraints (including energy), only ‘soft’ raw material constraints with regards to whats available on the open market.
So in my opinion, attributing inflation to ‘hard’ material constraints is premature and what really needs to be looked at is the ‘soft’ material constraints including the massive productivity gap of inadequate labour skills.
In other words, in my opinion, the systemic growth imperative has not reached its full potential by any stretch of the imagination. For example, high value commodity chains such as semiconductor microchip manufacture is experiencing a shortfall in the labour necessary to expand as is haulage and other essential sectors.
In fact I would go so far to say that what we are experiencing is not ‘hard’ limits to growth but a supply chain productivity crisis where supply is being constrained by a severe mismatch in labour skills or an inadequacy of labour skills, so that more raw materials can be processed and distributed.
In this respect, I would argue supply isn’t meeting demand because it is constrained by severe labour skill mismanagement whereby businesses can’t expand and grow because of labour shortages and a lack in the necessary skills.
The same might be said of the global energy system. Huge amounts of energy are being systematically mismanaged into activities that do not contribute towards productivity growth.
And then there is the empirical question of what actually remains of unmined fossil fuels with the Progressive green lobby adamant that growth should be sacrificed on the alter of climate change as if this is a decision that has already been made by an unelected chosen elite few, possibly to destabilise the global economy for political gain.
Overall, like the Robert Preston’s of the world, rather than accept the social just solution of the Warm Homes Discount which will add a mere £12 per year to the energy bills of the more affluent, the Progressive media emphasis is always on ‘crisis, crisis, crisis’ so that Progressive elites can continue with their chest beating performative politics.
https://palladiummag.com/2020/08/19/reform-is-driven-by-rising-elites/
In conclusion, the fact that there is abundant growth potential within our current system, by better allocating skills at the human level and better allocating resources into more productive activity means unproductive economic activities and unproductive economic lives need to be actively constrained unless it can be demonstrated that they have a high ecological value as an ecosystem service.
This means policy that doesn’t reward victimhood and economic unproductivity but policy that rewards ambition, adaptability and productivity, particularly in the private sector.
In my opinion, this would apply within a growth environment of soft material constraints, a post-growth environment of hard material constraints and a de-growth environment of politically imposed hard material constraints.
In this respect, if we are talking about prosperity, then everything should be about energy productivity, material productivity and human productivity in order to best maximise the utility of our hard and soft resource limits.
Reply to Steve Gwynne
And here endeth the lesson. Well said Steve Gwynne, that’s a perfect analysis of where we are at along with some of the Why?
Is the present “Collapse” Mangaged, Engineered, or an inevitability of Elitist Hubris?
I would argue its a combination of Premature transition management engineering, What’s known as the “Great Reset”
Presently though Central Bank Digital Currencies a new Going Direct solution to the misdiagnosed Banking collapse of the September 2019 New York repo rate spike is being implemented.
“The BlackRock plan calls for blurring the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy – exactly what the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are doing today in the United States. BlackRock has now been hired by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, and Sweden’s central bank, Riksbank, to implement key features of the plan. Three of the authors of the BlackRock plan previously worked as central bankers in the U.S., Canada and Switzerland, respectively.”
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/77171/blackrock-authored-the-bailout-plan-before-there-was-a-crisis%E2%80%93now-its-been-hired-by-three-central.html
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/06/01/fed-reveals-which-bond-etfs-it-purchased/
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2021/12/17/do-the-cantango-backwardation-to-monopoly-power-work-time-blood/