Eugene Coyle wrote: > The discussion triggered by Paul Phillips March 25th post has been very > interesting but kind of veered off into discusssing Malthus and population. > Paul correctly stressed the physical constraints on future growth but I > believe his aim at population as the major problem is over done. There are > better explanations for the jumps in commodity prices. > > It is Consumption rather than population that must be the focus. > Consumption in the USA, that is, and in the global north -- and within > those, the consumption of the more affluent. (And in the global south, the > consumption of the more affluent must also be addressed.) > > There is a much used formulation in environmental circles: I = PAT > where I is the impact on the environment of P (population), A (affluence) > and T (technology). Affluence is a proxy for the economist's Consumption. > > Of the three elements Impacting the physical world it is A that is the > threat. Technoloy could be a small ameliorating force -- or a menace.
EXACTLY! > Why do the Indians and Chinese buy cars? Because consumers in the USA do. > And why is that? We learn to consume from others more affluent. > Duesenberry knew that 50 years ago but, unfortunately buried his insight. > Nobody else in academia will touch it either. I don't know if he "buried" it (since it can be found in the library), but his theory goes totally against the individualistic grain of orthodox economics. Friedman rejected Duesenberry's theory not because it was empirically wrong but because it went against received wisdom. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
