Mathew Forstater wrote:
>
>
> I have a very short encyclopedia entry on the Kuznets U hypothesis, but
> it is part of slightly a longer essay, if anyone is interested.
I'd very much like to see it.
>I argue
> that Kuznets himself warned against applying what were some "hunches"
> about the early development of presently industrialized countries to
> currently 'developing' economies. Neverthless, in the 70s people like
> Paukert and Ahluwalia did just that, and even used cross-sectional data
> to test what was a theory about secular development. So they pieced
> together countries at different levels of GNP across a U shaped curve,
> implying that they were going to move along it. The problem here is that
> the conclusion that may be drawn is that countries with lousy income
> distribution should not worry, just keep on pursuing growth and they
> will become more equal. More recent evidence tells us this is not a
> very likely prospect, plus there is the problem with the environmental
> impact, since they are just talking about good old GNP/GDP grwoth, with
> all the problems with that.
>
> Cutler Cleveland has been doing interesting work for a long time on
> biophysical limits. At one time he supported the energy theory of value,
> which has some problems I think, although people like Herman Daly
> rejected it on the grounds that it was too similar to a labor theory of
> value, but I don't buy their non-critique of that.
You mean Odum's eMergy stuff? It doesn't really work, but it's useful in
lots of ways anyway, don't you think?
> Be that as it may,
> the Daly-Costanza ecological economics stuff has its good points, but it
> also has some weaknesses that can be improved by blending it with
> political economy, social ecology, feminist economics, etc.
Absolutely true.
> I have some
> papers where I derive what I call some biophysical conditions for a
> sustainable economy--similar to some of what you can find in the
> ecological economics and sustainability lit under the names of things
> like 'rules for sustainability' etc.
Is it on the Net, or can you send stuff to me offlist, Mat? I'd really be
obliged.
> If we take this stuff seriously,
> it would entail a very major transformation of the way we live, the
> technological structure of production (transformation from an
> exhaustible resource-based to a renewable resource-based technological
> structure of production, etc.), whole sectors, industries, firms,
> occupations, skills, etc, would become obsolete, news ones required.
> There would have to a major sort of transition period, rethinking the
> whole layout in terms of the way we live and so on. There would
> definitely have to be either a guaranteed income and or guaranteed jobs
> for all (and there will be plenty to do) to make sure that the
> disruptions would not result in more massive unemployment, poverty, etc.
> I don't think it is impossible, but it would require a fantastic change
> in consciousness etc. Adolph Lowe, who taught at the New School for
> many years and who was thinking about these issues from the sixties on,
> thought that it was possible that it would take a "mini-catastrophe" or
> even a few "mini-catastrophes" to get the message through to people on a
> mass scale that we absolutely must change in fundamental ways. He hoped
> that it would take a major catastrophe, and he hoped that maybe it
> wouldn't take any catastrophes at all, but the way things have
> developed, with the inequalities and the technological developments,
> some people are able to insulate themselves from the effects of
> environmental and other problems, so we might be looking more to
> something like the old movie "Metropolis" than bioregionalist communism
> or communist bioregionalism. I can't see how will get there absent
> significant economic and social planning, with all the challenges that
> brings. We are not on the path to evolve in that direction presently,
> it doesn't seem, not automatically. Mat
This is all very helpful and thank you so much.
Mark Jones
