"…a society that is absorbed by the fetishism of growth"?
• Is our SOCIETY "absorbed" or is there a deeper issue?
• Is growth just a fetish or is it also necessitated by a System?#Degrowth as the way forward might be better seen with analysis than by character judgement pic.twitter.com/qEYFsriZ6i
— Chris Baulman #TruthSeeking (@landrights4all) January 23, 2023
— Real-Estate Land Development Limited (@RealEstateLand3) January 18, 2023
The best oligarchy money can buy. https://t.co/eDCeNzmvW9 Gotta love the cost of living crisis, we're all in this together? Priced out of your Oligarchical democracy ?#EnoughlsEnough
— Real-Estate Land Development Limited (@RealEstateLand3) January 17, 2023
— Real-Estate Land Development Limited (@RealEstateLand3) January 19, 2023
Exploring Economics Lectures 05: Making economics consistent with thermodynamics I don’t ever want to be accused of Blowing Smoke up Steves Arse so here’s a critique of the good Profs Atmospheric Physics. Prof Keen is a fine Monetary Theorist and not so strong on the ol´ Atmospheric Physics. Readers and watchers might find the Rocket Science Journal of assistance in Explaining what is singularly garbled in this presentation at 53 mins. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ On the Limits for Growth please also take account of the criticisms of the assumed boundary conditions, again a source of confusion in Prof Keens explanations in this video. Robert Solow from MIT argued that prediction in The Limits to Growth was based on a weak foundation of data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, p. 103). Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated: The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth