Comments for The Food Here is Poison and the Portions Are So Small (Paul Krugman Edition) at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 23 out of 20 comments http://www.cepr.net Mon, 20 May 2013 08:18:41 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18487 [b]Downpuppy[/b] wrote, [quote]Global warming has zip to do with the release of fossil fuel energy.[/quote] So? The physics guy I cited isn't talking about global warming as usually defined. [quote]We had exponential growth in the 20th century. Population growth is linear now, and the odds are we're headed to dieoff. [/quote] I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the physics guy claimed the data show that [i]per capita[/i] energy use has increased exponentially for quite a while. Of course, the correct conclusion to draw from his considerations is that that won't continue, because it [i]can't[/i] continue. - liberal Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:44:04 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18486 Global warming has zip to do with the release of fossil fuel energy. The real issue is the differential absorption of short & long was radiation by the atmosphere. The amount of radiation released and absorbed by the earth daily is far higher than released by human activity, and a tiny change in the atmosphere has a much larger effect on the greenhouse equilibrium. Physicists like to play games with exponential growth to show things getting crazy. We had exponential growth in the 20th century. Population growth is linear now, and the odds are we're headed to dieoff. - Downpuppy Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:20:08 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18484 [b]AlanInAz[/b] wrote, [quote]Calling me crazy doesn't refute my claim about the energy balance.[/quote] I didn't call you crazy. I called your claims crazy. [quote]The problem claimed in the post is that the earth will heat too much REGARDLESS of energy source and I think the physicist is wrong (as explained earlier). [/quote] No, you're wrong. The physicist's claim is a statement: X implies Y. Here, X is "Human energy budget increases geometrically, at a rate of at least 2.3% per year." Y is "In the not too distant future, so much heat is generated that the earth heats up." The physicist's claim that X => Y looks pretty correct to me. Your reasoning doesn't contradict the claim, because if we [i]only[/i] rely on renewables, we cannot have geometric increase in energy usage, i.e., X is false. That case cannot be used to falsify the claim "X => Y". To do that, you need to find a case where X is true and Y is false. - liberal Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:33:23 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18480 liberal, Calling me crazy doesn't refute my claim about the energy balance. This blog isn't the right place to discuss the nuances of the physics arguments. I agree that energy use cannot continue to increase indefinitely and I agree there are limits to growth due to many resource constraints. The problem claimed in the post is that the earth will heat too much REGARDLESS of energy source and I think the physicist is wrong (as explained earlier). Waste heat from work derived from the energy flux of incoming solar radiation (solar, wind) will not add thermal energy to the earth. These solar sources have limits but not because of heat buildup on earth. I think he was being a bit too clever and did not analyze the earth's energy flux budget correctly. However, relying on nuclear (fission or fusion) will lead to his conclusion of a cooked planet. I think the physicist should have said that solar alone cannot provide unlimited energy and other sources will result in a cooked planet because of the second law of thermodynamics (cannot convert energy to work with 100% efficiency). - AlanInAZ Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:49:18 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18475 [b]AlanInAZ[/b] wrote, [quote]I read the post and I stand by my original thought. [/quote] That's crazy. The only conclusion from reading that blog entry is that geometric increase in energy usage cannot continue, regardless of whether it's from renewables or not. - liberal Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:21:54 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18464 I think you diss Krugman unfairly here. By no means did he endorse Gordon's views. Now you didn't say he did. But then why did you even mention Krugman -- if, in fact, your disagreement was with Gordon? You seem to be dragging Krugman into the middle of your beef with Gordon for no other reason but to diss him -- at least a little. - Fred Brack Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:41:13 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18460 Thank you liberal, I read the post and I stand by my original thought. Extracting energy to do work from wind, solar etc will lower the temperature based on the first law of thermodynamics, namely conservation of energy. The wind will have less energy after it passes the windmill and the earth will heat less because some of the incoming radiation is used for work. However, when we eat a cookie or burn gasoline we are releasing the potential chemical energy stored inside those items, and that does raise temperature. On a more practical level let me say that the growth of energy intensity will level off in the future as developing countries become more advanced so I don't think overloading the planet with energy will be a problem. The possible burning of all the sequestered fossil fuels is a huge problem which is not on the radar at the moment. - AlanInAZ Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:13:45 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18459 I agree that it's better to have strong rather than weak productivity growth, but the issue, as many commentators have already noted, is about who enjoys the gains from rising productivity. If Gordon is right and productivity growth slows dramatically, then it just might push enough people into the streets, demanding a fairer distribution of wages -- primarily because the top 1 percent will no longer be able to hide behind slogans like, "a rising tide lifts all boats." That, I think, would be a good thing. - JSeydl Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:19:25 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18458 [b]AlanInAZ[/b] wrote, [quote]I would like to see that calculation. I don't think it is correct if the source of energy is solar, wind or wave or hydroelectric.[/quote] OK, I found it: [url]http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/[/url] Excerpt: [quote] At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars![/quote] - liberal Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:18:59 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18457 Fred List wrote, ...Switzerland are doing fantastically well I can't speak about other countries but I do have family in Switzerland and I can tell you that the middle class is under the same pressure there as in the US. Don't trust economic statistics to paint a true picture of the life of real people. There has been a large influx of people from all over the world at both ends of the economic scale. The rich make the country seem more prosperous than it really is and the poorer immigrants keep wages down. Virtually all of Switzerland's population growth is from immigration. My sister in-law is a doctor and she faces competition from all of Europe, including the low wage eastern countries. - AlanInAZ Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:05:23 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18455 Um, you are actually reacting mostly to Gordon's paper. Krugman only pointed it out, said "Hmm" about it, and remarked that a significant point Gordon made (about the value of indoor plumbing vs. Facebook) was interesting. Looks like you're criticizing Gordon, and pointing out Krugman, mainly to drive traffic. - KJMClark Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:29:34 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18453 This post by Baker is a prime candidate for addition to the GOP platform as proof that people create jobs. Not government, not robots, not capital, not technology, not deficits, not spending, not tax reductions, not stimulus, not even labor. People. They're the other input factor. - Last Mover Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:56:10 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18452 ... I can't see Mitt Romney's country club going cafeteria style, the whole point there is conspicuous consumption, and what is more conspicuous than having a fellow human shine your shoes, polish your silver, etc. Productivity gains are always second to pursuit of social status in these poor creatures' minds, and their only interest in productivity gains is to cement their social status as 'the elite.' @bobs: although cafeterias and automated restocking exist, they are not yet generic. Engines are generic, as are plumbed residences, electricity, ... And just because Gordon or Baker can't envision the next big invention that meets a REAL need, doesn't mean there isn't one waiting to eventually manifest. That's hardly a concession on Dr. Baker's part, methinks. - David Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:33:42 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18450 Gordon factors out the 2007 crisis from his analysis, so current unemployment is irrelevant. If all Baker can respond with is cafeteria and automated restocking (both of which already exist), then he's conceding the point to Gordon. - bobs Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:59:09 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18449 The problem with this whole thing, and 99.9% of economic thinking in America, is that it fundamentally fails to understand the purpose of an economy. The purpose of an economy is NOT to produce jobs, it is to produce wealth. The problem with our economy, and with all capitalist economies, is that as ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, the PROFITS go to an increasingly smaller and smaller portion of the population. Today the richest 0.01% of the population receives MASSIVE levels of income that those people perform no JOBS for, they get this income via ownership of capital. The fundamental problem with the American economy is the concentration of capital ownership, which is an inherent aspect of capitalism. This is the basis of Marx's prediction for the "crisis of capitalism". What we need is not a way to "create more jobs", what we need is a way to more equally distribute "capital gains". Any industrialized economy will be held back and have its hands tied, thus experiencing a death of growth as Gordon described, so long as it is based on traditional capitalism. Capitalism will always reach a point where it dies, naturally, where productivity can no longer increase, because increases in productivity put workers out of work, who then have no means to consume, creating a vicious cycle. The only way to break this cycle is to ensure an equal distribution of productivity gains to all people, irrespective of work. The 20th century form of State Socialism clearly isn't the answer, but fundamentally the objectives of Communism are still the only solution for a growing industrial economy. You have to break the link between "working" and income in order to allow continuing advances in industrialization and automation. We have to be able to have an economy where the income of all people increases as productivity increases. I think the best way to do that is via something called "Distributionism", which is the relatively equal distribution of capital ownership to private individuals. In other words, retaining private ownership of capital, but ensuring that everyone shares an equal ownership of capital. Doing that would ensure that everyone would have increasing incomes as productivity increases, so that even if people's wage income went down, their capital income would go up. This breaks the feedback loop between unemployment and economic growth. This was, of course, the major point of Karl Marx over 150 years ago, but the problem was that the Marxists settled on using "the state" to take ownership of all capital, which led to the inevitable corruption, inefficiencies, and abuses that we have seen in all "Communist" countries. What we need is equal distribution of capital ownership, but retained in individual private hands, not held by the government. The government should merely be the mechanism of distribution, not the actual holder of the capital. For more see my website: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ - rationalrevolution Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:34:51 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18447 We have had "sighted" robots for many years. Think about the smart bombs and cruise missiles used in both Iraq wars. In factories, the application of video imagery is a work in progress and getting better every month. - Ron Alley Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:18:23 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18446 Liberal said: "waste heat that that alone will greatly increase temperatures on earth" I would like to see that calculation. I don't think it is correct if the source of energy is solar, wind or wave or hydroelectric. In those cases we would be extracting energy from active systems in the biosphere to do work. This would possibly reduce temperature rather than increase temperatures. Fossil fuels and nuclear however use potential energy sequestered in the biosphere to do work and would in fact increase the temperature. - AlanInAZ Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:14:41 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18442 [b]Fred List[/b] wrote, [quote]...Switzerland are doing fantastically well[/quote] I'm not sure Switz. is a great example, seeing that one of it's main industries is money laundering. - liberal Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:21:37 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18441 Not sure you captured Krugman's point which was more about technology. - Eclectic Obsvr Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:20:18 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-food-here-is-poison-and-the-portions-are-so-small-paul-krugman-edition#comment-18440 [b]skeptonomist[/b] wrote, [quote]Economists need to get over the ideas that populations can increase indefinitely and that "technology" under free markets will automatically solve problems of energy production.[/quote] Yeah. I don't have the link handy, but some physicist had a blog post about this kind of thing. He pointed out that energy use has increased geometrically, and that even if we found replacement energy sources, it can't go on like this forever because the geometric rate of increase will eventually lead to so much waste heat that that alone will greatly increase temperatures on earth. And this was all in the context of a discussion with an economist at a dinner party, where it was clear the economist had no understanding of these issues. - liberal Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:17:17 +0100