On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > great stuff, however utopian it may seem! It makes more sense to me > than dumping the idea of "growth" into the crapper, especially if the > meaning of "growth" is left unexamined. (BTW, it's Akerlof.)
Thanks. And yes, typo on Akerlof. > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/25/17212/723 >> >> How much should we spend to green the U.S.? >> Public investment and regulation can be main means to green >> Posted by Gar Lipow (Guest Contributor) at 11:59 AM on 29 Nov 2008 >> >> In the face of economic catastrophe, yesterday's controversial >> assertion has become today's conventional economic wisdom. That lack >> of regulation is one root of the current depression is not only the >> view of liberals and moderates, but also of sensible conservatives. >> And the need for public investment to fight the depression is no >> longer in doubt either. There are really only two tools in the >> conventional economic toolbox to fight a depression: lower interest >> rates, and public investment. Given that real interest rates are close >> to zero, that doesn't leave a whole lot of alternatives. >> >> Most of the economists who predicted the crash, Nobel laureates Joseph >> Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlo, not to mention Roubini, now >> support [PDF] really large scale public investment -- $300 to 400 >> billion annually. Dean Baker and Paul Krugman suggest the right number >> may be more like $500 to 600 billion. >> >> At same time, Joe Romm wrote an open letter to Jim Hansen indicating >> how much technology we have to deploy very quickly to meet the 350 ppm >> target Hansen has set. Below the fold I describe in detail how we >> could deploy existing technology to meet these goals, how much we'd >> have to spend on grants, and how much we'd have to spend on loans. All >> figures are taken from the spreadsheet Jon Rynn and I have put >> together on green scenarios. >> >> The bottom line is that we have about $275 billion a year we could >> productively invest in a green transformation, rising over the course >> of 20 years to $475 billion, and then dropping down to $265 billion >> for a decade after the transformation was complete, to pay off the >> last of the "green debt." Those subsidies would make up for any >> difference in cost between green energy and dirty energy. >> >> Social benefits from such a transformation (aside from global warming >> reduction) would result in net economic growth compared to the >> scenario in which we continue to use dirty energy. >> >> Read the rest at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/25/17212/723 >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange > days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
