So most of the human species lives under conditions as bad as or worse than the current population of Bangladesh? Say 10% live in protected enclaves, air-conditioned, and with immense dikes around London, New York, a handful of other such sites. The remaining 90%, no matter how miserable, should be able to produce enough for bare survival for themselves plus the needed luxury for the remaining 10%. The economy is working then; the market is surviving.
What's wrong with this? Coal will last a few centuries, though the pollution and heat will increase rapidly. So what? TINA, the 10% will say -- and the 90% may not be able to get together at the same time and place. All is well. After a few centuries more the Ten Percent can go out with a glorious bang. All is well. Carrol -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eubulides Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:06 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Links to Dean Baker & Krugman on Secular Stagnation On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > I should have put these links in my earlier post so you could follow what I > was > addressing. > > Krugman opened the discussion with this, about the weirdness of the present > economy: > > > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/bubbles-regulation-and-secular-stagnation/ > > Dean Baker responded with this: > http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-on-bubbles-and-secular-stagnation > > And Krugman responded with this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com > > And I wanted to scream. > > Gene ====================== Happy screaming: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/the-cost-of-climate-change/ How much will climate change cost? Later this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue its fourth report, aggregating what the latest science tells us about how man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are warming the environment. It is likely to present a dire picture. “The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change has strengthened year by year,” said Qin Dahe, a climatologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is co-chairman of the working group preparing the panel’s report. The accumulating evidence, he said, leaves “fewer uncertainties about the serious consequences of inaction.” Nonetheless, the report will probably do little to address the most fundamental question: how much should we spend on prevention? The best answer, still, is that nobody has any idea. What’s more, science and economics may have no better answer to provide. Consider my recent column about the Obama administration’s estimates of how much we should pay to slow global warming. It ran into a storm of criticism. The column focused mostly on different assumptions of how much current spending was needed to pay for environmental damage in the distant future. The critique, however, zeroed in on the estimates of such future costs. Such estimates, my critics said, were meaningless. [snip] How useful were the clergy after the plague? _______________________________________________ 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
