“If this Republic survives the onslaught of fascism, we need to recommit to education. Funding Public Schools and make civics mandatory in High Schools.”
Survivalist, I sense this is part of your strawman argument against EV’s. I don’t believe most of the advocates here at POB of EV’s, think there going to save humanity. I see the use of ICE more like a twenty-five year old who drinks a fifth of whisky every night and an energy transition away from fossil fuel as committing to AA.
“Robotaxi ”
I agree a lot with Dennis on most subjects here, but don’t see robotaxi changing significantly purchasing habits of most Americans. We will see. On the other hand, I see self driving vehicles making trucking a lot more efficient in the future. When you remove the labor costs from trucking, the most cost efficient speed becomes about 45mph. This will cut the energy required in half. When the shit hits the fan, trucks will charge during the day and move during the night.
Perhaps you are correct, the assumption I make is that robotaxis (if they ever become a reality) will reduce the cost of travel to the point that owning a personal vehicle will become a choice rather than a necessity for most US citizens. It will mostly be the wealthy that will have the excess income to make such a choice. Currently ownership costs per mile are about 75 cents per mile for the average private vehicle, robotaxis at scale are expected to be about a third of current cost, some will choose to reduce their travel expenses by a factor of three, others may not.
Old men will be slow to change, but young people may make this choice.
I have been reading a lot of comments here and other places. Getting bombarded with a lot of instant news is upon us all.
There is just one important issue when it comes to the energy transition. Who gets the job done?
It is the biggest job out there, and it is a long one lasting over several decades. To work towards the best well thought out targets is the best psychological sound way to work and approach the big task imo.
Populist leaders could derail the effort for some time. I keep going back to leadership theory where Drexel claims that you have to clearly state the objectives, they have to be obtainable and you also have to have the by-in from most participants.
What comes to mind as a solution is a D. Eisenhower personality type. Pretty ruthless when it comes obtaining objectives, but the guy that gets the job done. He was a Republican and did what he had to do even if the circumstances at the time was full speed ahead. Much easier than today.
The main point of this post is that it is a big job to be done. It is much better with all hands on deck with a somewhat sensible direction going ahead with an administration that can get the job done. Unless relying on oppression mainly. Then we are back at how you could get ahead in a poor let’s say 1700s society. And without a doubt it will be a ruthless judgement for failure if that materialises in todays situation. That failure is not neccessary in parts of the world with a lot of privileges currently (i.e. a lot of rings to peel of the onion of prosperity).
Eisenhower would not recognize today’s Republican party and would be considered a Rino (Republican in name only) by most Republicans in national office today. Even Reagan was far more liberal than many Republicans today, it is too bad that Bush doesn’t have the balls to speak out against Trump who clearly has fascist leanings and chose Madison Square Garden to reenact the February 20, 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden. The “enemy within” nonsense spewed by Trump is right out of the Hitler and Mussolini playbooks as is the threat to use the military against Trump’s political opposition (the so called enemy within.)
Don’t look for a leader to be out in front on these issues. Leaders will follow the general will of the populace on energy and climate adaptation attempts, in democracies anyway.
I believe Xi is primarily motivated by avoidance of energy poverty for the country. Not a bad goal.
Probably correct, I think the point is that a well executed plan can accomplish quite a bit, I agree the population has to support the effort. In the US it is difficult for the government to accomplish much today as much of the nation distrusts the government, this was much less of a problem in 1952 in the US.
The energy transition may be left to the market, probably not the most efficient path forward. Tariffs will make it even less efficient, if we get Trump and he follows through with his promises.
Xi is also scared of protests over environmental problems like air pollution, tainted food, epidemics etc. I think the Communists think that that is one issue that could lead to mass protests in the huge dense cities of Eastern China.
That’s why they have a greenish tinge despite their generally thuggish nature. It’s not like America, where environmentalists are laughed at as hippies.
Some have recently indicated that world is close to peak global CO2 emissions day.
To the contrary I guess it will come in the next decade, and then decline slowly after that.
Regardless of the moment, CO2 is on track to continue with accumulation in the atmosphere for the rest of the century.
On electricity demand…globally demand is in a sharp uptrend. Many reasons, including how much more air conditioners people are deploying in an attempt to survive fossil fuel warming.
The problem with peak emissions day is that it’s not even close to a victory. since the cumulative airborne CO2 will continue to rise, only slight;y slowing.
Peak Oil looks a bit quaint in comparison, as the other side of peak is a true decline.
“According to current projections the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration could reach between 540 and 970 parts per million (ppm) by the end of the century”
Somebody should add a Wikipedia entry for Peak Airborne CO2 Concentration, and the intro should read “Sorry, this entry is a joke as there will not be a peak likely for the next few centuries. Deal with it. “
Six or seven years ago there were a few “experts “ who were saying Indian and Chinese coal plant would be stranded assets in just a couple of years.
China’s National Energy Administration thinks China has overinvested in coal-fired power plants.
Been reading stories like that for 10 years.
Some underutilised plants in China may shut down leaving the ones running to operate at higher rates.
One thing for sure the amount of coal, oil and gas burning on top of deforestation, forest fires and soil destruction is pushing the world into catastrophic collapse.
LOADSOFOIL
Actually you haven’t been reading things like this for ten years. Coal plant utilization was significantly higher ten years ago, and solar and wind were significantly more expensive. Also battery prices have crashed and China has built a lot of pumped hydro storage, pushing round-the- clock production towards the margins.
If you think nothing has changed in the energy industry in the last ten years, you are living in a dream world.
But you aren’t alone. It’s weird how many comments around here are based on “facts” that are just made up.
Talk about low EROEI
“To sequester the CO2 from 1 tonne of coal combustion, it typically takes around 25-30% of the energy produced by burning that tonne of coal; this translates to roughly 5-6 gigajoules of energy needed to capture and store the CO2 produced.” consider a this very rough estimate
Don’t really need a source, just logic. For the amount of CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, about 1/2 has permanently remained in the atmosphere, and much of the rest is sitting near the surface of the ocean, ready to outgas again, to keep the levels near 50/50 for centuries to come.
Now consider how much effort it will take to continuously filter out the CO2 that has been emitted for 150 years. It’s essentially the same as running every known smokestack and tailpipe exhaust IN REVERSE for the same amount of time and then burying the waste.
They don’t want anyone to think of the absurdity of this, and that some magic filter will come along. Some think it is just more vegetation.
” to continuously filter out the CO2 that has been emitted for 150 years. It’s essentially the same as running every known smokestack and tailpipe exhaust IN REVERSE ”
That’s only true if you want to recreate hydrocarbons. I don’t think you have to. I believe carbon can be captured with various chemical reactions that require much less energy.
“I don’t think you have to. I believe carbon can be captured with various chemical reactions that require much less energy.”
CO2 is already a low-energy state molecule. I know many people have this intuition that gases can’t weigh anything but 0.04% of the atmosphere is a huge mass. It has to be buried somewhere, along with whatever chemical material is acting as the reagent. If you think it’s pure CO2, then that’s dry ice you’re thinking of burying.
Here’s a factoid to consider — if CO2 was actually straightforward to remove from the air, why doesn’t a SodaStream carbonation unit include a mechanism to just extract CO2 from the air? How hard can it be? Why must we buy the CO2 cartridges, which seems an awful waste of shipping and storage.
IT’s easy to see where this comes from. They read about ridiculous punitive penalties in lawsuits in America so they think it’s OK to do it in Russia too. But they don’t really have any concept of big numbers.
To me this is just another example of how Russia is culturally and intellectually dependent on America, and a lot of what they do is a parody of what they see on American TV, which is utterly ridiculous to start with.
Putin reminds me a lot of the Vandal king Gaiseric, who dedicated his life to destroying the Roman empire. When he died his kingdom collapsed, his only heritage was ruining forever the proud name of his ancestors, in whose names he claimed to be fighting.
Posting this one here in non-petroleum in response to some of your comments on the other side about debt.
I have never spent the time to completely understand the discussion/debate around debt. So, my comment here is a sincere question based on a lack of understanding.
Counter examples like Japan and Spain have always made this topic seem uncertain to me even without trying to understand all of the economic fundamentals.
However, I do wonder if demographic change in the rest of the century will settle this more clearly. If we really head towards something like 4-7 B by the end of the century, won’t that mean that growth will cease and that repayment of existing debts will become that much harder?
Debt can be erased: thats what bankruptcy is all about. National insolvency is common: see “This time is different: 8 centuries of financial folly”, by Reinhart.
A key factor is the relationship between lender and buyer: is the transaction between different arms of the same government (e.g., US Social Security Fund and Federal Government; Japanese Post Office and Japanese Government)?
Interest rates: if growth is zero, rates will be too (they can even go negative). Debt management will be easy.
Is debt in the currency of the borrower? Do exchange rates float? If both is yes (e.g., the US), debt management is much easier. If not (e.g., Greece) then things are very hard.
Nick. Yes government debt can be “erased”, but consequences can include loss of the ability to fund what have been considered essential services and entitlements, and severe devaluation of the currency, savings, and assets like real estate. Long austerity ending in a lower place. Those are part of the risk bundle.
I know some debt is ok while you are growing, or as an individual fully employed.
But to assume we will always be in a growth environment, as government projections on solvency and debt service do, is a recipe for failure. A gamble on the perpetual rosy scenario.
To service the debt-
“As of October 2024 it costs $1133 billion to maintain the [Federal Gov] debt, which is 17% of the total federal spending in fiscal year 2024”
That seems like a waste of money to me, and risky. We are in a growing economy. Shouldn’t debt service be much less of the annual budget….less than 10% say? Unless perhaps we were in a severe emergency like ww2.
Most people don’t want to admit it, but our nations funding of the elderly (medicare and SS) is probably 20 years past the level of what is sustainable for a growing economy. At some point that will change the hard way, with huge disruption to the society.
I agree that the US deficit is way too large. This is NOT the result of excess spending, and SS & Medicare expenses are perfectly sustainable. This is the result of inadequate taxation. The wealthy have disproportionate power so they pay disproportionately low taxes, starting with Reagan.
As for the effects of sovereign default: have you read the book I suggested? It would help, I think. A very quick summary: sovereign default is far more common than you might think, and very often much less damaging than you might expect.
There is also a lot of confusion between debt and government debt. This is driven by right wing ideologues trying to undermine civil society.
In fact, most debt is private debt. When discussions of total debt veer off into discussions of government debt, you can see the brainwashing has worked.
I am more risk averse than many of you, preferring more cautious financial status for myself and the country. I prefer to be on firmer footing when the inevitable instability shocks come around.
Oh, I agree with a sensible fiscal policy: deficits only during recessions, surpluses during periods of strong growth. I think most sensible people do.
Sadly, Republicans (controlled by the wealthy) do not. Reagan started the strategy of cutting taxes to cripple government, deficit be damned. Biden, for better or worse, was the first democratic president to break free from this strategy, ignore the deficit and spend on neglected priorities like climate and infrastructure.
Not a good overall situation, but not quite as bad as some suggest.
If there are fewer people there will be less demand for debt, basically it is the ratio of debt to GDP for all credit (excluding financial corporations) in all sectors (both public and private) that is important. There are wide disparities between nations in their level of debt, the average debt to GDP from 2002 to 2024 for all reportinh nations and groups is shown in chart below. Mexico had the lowest debt to GDP at 60 and Netherlands had the highest average at 367 over the 2001Q4 to 2024Q1 period. The advanced nations tend to be between 200 and 300 for Debt to GDP with a few that are higher than 300. The G20 economies have an average of 228 and Euro area is 246, US is 244 (averages over 2001Q4 to 2024Q1 period).
Debt is largely the consequence of the need for liquidity in an economic system which is fundamentally endogenous. In an economic system which is exogenous debt must equal savings because that is the only source of money ( deposits). Not so in an endogenous monetary system where deposits are created in return for collateral – this is how banks create deposits. http://ssrn.com/abstract=4637150
if one wants to read more.
rgds
Thanks Dennis. Everything you said in this reply makes sense to me.
There is one point/period in time that I am having trouble with. I believe that my baseline assumption mirrors your own that global population will peak and decline this century. At the point that such a transition occurs, economic growth would also seem likely to end. However, prior debt will remain and it would therefore seem difficult to make good on the debt. Yes?
I take Nick G’s point as indicating that debt has been repeatedly destroyed throughout history by the equivalent of bankruptcy up to and including nation states. I guess my question is prompted by a desire to understand the process and, perhaps, thereby avoid the pain that seems to come with such rebalancing.
There might be an increase in debt to GDP for a short time, but note that there will still be some growth as real GDP per capita grows at about 1.5% per year so until population reaches a 1.5% decline rate we may continue to have some growth. Also keep in mind that the term on a loan is limited and how much is loaned is dependent on income (think of mortgages and typical loan to income ratio maximums of about 3.2). So as GDP grows more slowly, debt will grow more slowly as well. In short GDP grows more slowly and debt also grows more slowly.
Here is US Federal expeditures as a % of GDP. Not really a problem and as interest rates come down due to falling inflation the interest expenditures will fall as they did from 1991 to 2002.
The chart combines the data from the links above, fed interest expenditures divided by GDP.
Dennis
We are going to find out over the next decade how a declining population and a declining working population will cope with massive debt.
China has already passed peak working population and that will decline by over 100 million in the next 15 year. 100 million more retirees supported by 100 million less people working.
Yeah the trend is that Republican presidents trash the place.
@ Dennis
Public debt is not the same as private debt. It is not the same risks.
The situation of the US (high public debt – 126% of GDP) is not similar to the situation of Switzerland (low public debt – 36% of GDP).
Public debt is a much critical indicator.
Countries with high public debt have structural problems and are often in serious political crisis.
This is your opinion, but the examples of countries with public debts exceeding 100% of GDP show that these countries are often in emergency situations, very difficult to manage, not to say in serious political crises, with austerity policies.
We are no longer in 1950, when we could rebuild everything with abundant and cheap oil. Now easy growth in energy production no longer exists. So a bad debt becomes an unpayable debt in the longer term.
Public Debt in Japan was over 100% from 1999Q2 to 2024Q1. It has been over 200% since 2018Q4. Belgium has had public debt over 100% since 2009Q2, other examples of nations with public debt over 100% for many quarters are US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and Singapore. There are some cases where this causes a crisis such as Greece, but for most advanced economies it is not a problem. If nations want lower debt levels they choose to collect more taxes, it really is that simple.
Total debt is probably more important in looking at the economy, some believe public debt is bad and private debt id good, I don’t think it matters much and in fact the whole debt is bad argument has little basis in fact. There are differences in opinion on this in economics, I don’t find the opinions arguing for austerity in the face of a recession very convincing, J.M. Keynes gave some pretty good arguments and the entire Keynesian tradition and the neoclassical synthesis of the 60s and 70s along with neo-Keynesian arguments all lend considerable weight to this view.
There can be too much debt, probably over 330% total debt to GDP (this is public and private debt) is a problem long term. At that point we nee to either raise taxes or cut spending (or some of both), legislators just need to reach a compromise and act.
I do not support this or that policy to solve the equation, I say that political crises and austerity are realities that affect countries with high public debt.
Of course, the most powerful actors are both judge and party. This allows them not to be punished as harshly as Greece has been for now. But if the trend persists, it is only a matter of time before reality catches up with these players as well.
And peak oil creates a global context that is unfavourable to growth, which adds to the risks that existed in the past. This significantly reduces the prospects for economic recovery in the event of an excessive government debt.
Presently it is no longer possible to rule out a serious default on US debt.
And we are talking about the largest public debt in the world!
Do you seriously think that the game will go on indefinitely with US public debt?
easy growth in energy production no longer exists.
If that’s central to your perspective you need to rethink it. Solar power growth is easy and cheap, and is easily scalable as far as needed.
There is no debt crisis. Understand commercial banks buying government bonds is viewed by the banks as risk free money.
If banks are paying 1.5%-2.5% on deposits. Their assets which are the government bonds are yielding 4.5%-5.0%. The banks are pocketing the spread.
What is 2.0%-3.0% on say $10 billion dollars? If your a bank you’ll load up and buy all you can.
As the economy sinks banks will loan money to the government instead of loaning money into the economy.
No Nick, again you are totally wrong. The entire renewable agenda as a replacement for fossil fuels cannot work and is far more expensive than than the cheap fossil fuels we’ve been using.
It’s you that needs to rethink. Despite the number of times that I clearly show how a new Aluminium smelter in Indonesia is vastly cheaper to set up and run off coal fired power, by a factor of 10 compared to setting up the same via solar and batteries, you just the deny the reality staring you in the face.
We’ve only been able to have the modern civilization we actually have because of abundant, cheap to access fossil fuels and high grade ore bodies that Earth’s processes concentrated for us over many millions to billions of years.
We’ve used up all the easiest to get resources with the remaining ones much more energy intensive to gain access to, while in the process badly damaged the climate and ecosystem, to the point of pushing our climate to uncontrolled heating, that will be very damaging to not only ourselves but the remainder of the natural world.
Your concept of doing more damage to keep the technological civilization going as long as possible just leads to a harder collapse when it comes as we use fossil fuels to make all the new systems you want us to grow.
As money is the human token for energy exchange, when our energy availability declines, the competition for the remaining energy will push the price of everything up rapidly. Much of the population will be unable to afford what they do now as basics of life become rapidly more important, sending economies into rapid recession, exactly as Sceptic has stated.
As even coal and gas rely upon oil products for their own production, oil is the master resource, so when it goes into decline so does everything else. It’s a physical certainty that oil production will go into decline at some point, so the future is also certainly not trying to produce more oil, it’s a dead end.
However believing in fantasies does not help our situation at all, it just promotes more business as usual of growth, instead of admitting the reality of modern civilization being in massive, not minor, overshoot.
Sceptic,
Forever is a long time indeed, for next 100 years or so, I think the US will be fine, beyond that the World will be so different, the question may look like the manure crisis in New York City in 1910. If public deficits become a problem, reintoduce the income tax rates of 1945 to 1970 (adjusted for inflation) and deficits become surpluses. The solution is something any child could devise.
BIS data on general government debt (aka public debt). Average for 2021Q4 to 2024Q1. Click on chart for larger view.
Average is good, but you can also look at the dynamic trend. As it is not a static situation.
In 2019, US gvt debt was 108%. Now it is 121%.
And interest is now higher then it was, growth is lower.
It is not normal trend. It is very dangerous trend.
And the US public debt is not the Greek public debt.
KD will not be popular on this site (climate change denialism) but he is very good at some things.
One is analysing Government financing and accounting.
His latest analysis above.
Skeptic I showed the dynamic trend earlier for total Debt, for US public debt it has risen to high levels since the pandemic, higher taxes are needed to bring it lower, lower interest rates will also help a bit.
@Dennis
No politician wants to achieve your higher taxes – because it would mean a recession program and the end of the “American dream”.
This is why the Democrats may even prefer to give power back to D.Trump. Who is going to redress the American public debt?
Certainly not Trump…
Only a world war III could cancel this debt.
higher taxes…would mean a recession program
How about avoiding tax cuts when growth is strong? Unnecessary tax cuts are our central problem. Tax increases when growth is strong are also safe, and far better than interest rate increases, as we have now.
Sceptic,
Tax rates were very high in the US from 1945 to 1970 and the economy mostly did very well. So economic history disproves your hypothesis.
@Dennis
Yes, between 1945 and 1970, energy was growing very sharply, promoting very strong growth.
The current US dynamic is very different.
And China has become the centre of manufacturing production.
What remains in the US is the largest public debt in the world.
Sceptic,
You said that high tax rates lead to recession, not really true. If the public want balanced budgets, then either spending must be reduced or taxes must be increased, that’s the way a budget works. I agree with Hickory that public spending makes more sense than holding taxes steady. For those with high income, a much smaller proportion of income is spent, most is saved and the old classical economics notion that savings will become private investment is nonsense as Keynes understood very well. High tax rates on the wealthy will allow more productive public investment which will lead to higher economic growth, exactly the reverse of what you surmise.
The public debt is properly measured against GDP. The US public debt to GDP is very much in line with the advanced nation average. Average annual growth rates in the US have been higher than the high income nation average.
Chart of US and high income nation average from 2010 to 2023.
“You said that high tax rates lead to recession” – Yes.
You answer as if the current context had no influence on reality.
We are no longer in 1945, nor in 1970 nor in 2008.
We are in 2024.
The current US public debt + peak oil + US deindustrialization + the change in economic gravity towards Asia + rising interest rates = very difficult context for the US.
And there is no indication that this context will change easily.
On the contrary, everything shows that the American political context is heading for disaster.
GPlease give concrete arguments about context switching.
What are the American capacities to change the trend?
In which areas is the US recovering?
Prices are falling quickly. The main drivers are lower metal prices, better battery pack design and better battery chemistry. They don’t explicitly mention more efficient production methods, but it probably plays a role as well.
Replying here in the non-oil thread to one of your posts on the oil side.
You note that “…in American cities most land is exclusively reserved for single family homes…” Can you cite a source in support of this? I suspect you are referring to some press articles in the last few years that estimate this for the fraction of residential zoning in cities, but not all land within city boundaries. Correct?
Also, you note that “…land use is hopelessly inefficient. This in turn is the cause of decaying infrastructure…”. I disagree. Physical infrastructure may ‘decay’ for a host of reasons including factors such as metal corrosion and freeze-thaw induced cracking.
Based on your prior posts, I suspect your point is instead about the relative efficiency and/or sustainability of dense urban areas vs lower density cities or rural areas. That dense urban cities are the epitome of sustainability seems to be a commonly held belief within US urban planning circles. However, there is relatively little high-quality research that I have been able to find on this question, and what there is provides a number of examples which do not support such a conclusion.
They can sometimes be a pain to find though, especially since cities have switched to interactive maps which are usually slow.
Physical infrastructure may ‘decay’ for a host of reasons including factors such as metal corrosion and freeze-thaw induced cracking.
Physical infrastructure decays when it is not maintained. For example, the town in Tennessee where I come from has a planned street repair cycle of 18 years. In other words each street would be repaired every 18 years unless something special came up.
A childhood friend of mine became city manager about 30 years ago. The 70s and 80s had seen a massive expansion of the street network as new suburbs and malls were built, and the old town was gradually abandoned. When he took office, the 18 year cycle had slipped to 42 years. There were simply too many streets for the city to maintain. His reaction was to put brakes on greenfield building and street expansion and focus development on areas of pre-existing infrastructure.
I would be curious to see some of your examples of research. It’s pretty obviously nonsense to claim you can go on expanding road sewage etc forever without growing the tax base to maintain it.
This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant. #Womenwillnotbesilenced #VoteKamala
He did not call for her execution. His characterization of her as a hawk is valid and his comments about guns pointing at her changing her militant viewpoint was asinine, stupid and inappropriate but in character.
Another reason why I hate the media: He didn’t call for her execution, he fantasized about her facing soldiers shooting at her as if she were engaged in combat herself. Trump is still a deranged rapist fraudulent thug, but the media completely undermines itself again and again and again.
The Nazi’s built prisons for their political opponents and homosexuals first. Then used them for the Jews. Mike you need to get real. Trump talks in code and doesn’t put anything in writing. This is to skirt the law and part of the process of normalizing vilance and hate. He is preparing you for what he plans to do if he gets back into power.
I suspect your in denial and don’t really understand the gravity of the momnet. November 5 will be the most important day in history of your life. He will change the world order that was set after WWll.
I believe he said 9 guns shooting at her face, now unless we assume those guns are not wielded by someone with very poor aim and the guns are not squirt guns, generally 9 bullets to the face will result in death. He did not “say” she should be executed though. So the media is drawing inappropriate conclusions perhaps.
A firing squad is typically 5 rifles, with 1 rifle filled with a blank. Yet, with Trump’s penchant for exaggerating everything. it would be unlikely he would say just 5.
NEXT WEEK tens of millions of Americans will vote for Donald Trump. Some will do so out of grievance, because they think Kamala Harris is a radical Marxist who will destroy their country. Some are fired up by national pride, because Mr Trump inspires in them the belief that, with him in the White House, America will stand tall. Yet some will coolly opt to vote Trump as a calculated risk.
This last group of voters, which includes many readers of The Economist, may not see Mr Trump as a person they would want to do business with, or any kind of role model for their children. But they probably think that when he was president he did more good than bad. They may also believe the case against him is wildly overblown. Central to this calculation is the idea that Mr Trump’s worst instincts would be constrained: by his staff, the bureaucracy, Congress and the courts.
This newspaper sees that argument as recklessly complacent. America may well breeze through four more years of Mr Trump, as it has the presidencies of other flawed men from both parties. The country may even thrive. But voters claiming to be hard-headed are overlooking the tail risk of a Trump presidency. By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
Some will dismiss this as alarmism. It is true that our worst fears about Mr Trump’s first term did not come to pass. At home, he cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which has grown faster than any of its rich-world counterparts. His administration deserves credit for funding vaccines for covid-19, even if he refused to urge Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he projected strength, shifting the consensus towards a confrontational posture on China. He helped broker the Abraham accords, which formalised relations between Israel and some of its neighbours—a peace that has so far survived a regional war. He prodded some of America’s allies to increase their defence spending. Even when Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutions held firm.
If The Economist failed to foresee so much in 2016, why heed our warning now? The answer is that today the risks are larger. And that is because Mr Trump’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers.
Make America grate again
The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republican platform was still caught between the Mitt Romney party and the Trump party. Today’s version is more extreme. Mr Trump favours a 20% tariff on all imports and has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. He proposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs and American children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blithe indifference to sound fiscal management.
These policies would be inflationary, potentially setting up a conflict with the Federal Reserve. They would risk igniting a trade war that would ultimately impoverish America. The combination of inflation, out-of-control deficits and institutional decay would bring forward the day when foreigners worry about lending the US Treasury unlimited money.
…
the article continues, if you register with the economist you can read it for free (if you are not already a subscriber).
True, we could deal with interest payments on debt load of an aging country by raising taxes.
But I’d rather see any tax increase used for direct payment of more productive investments than just paying interest on past debt accumulation. We could come up with a very big list of useful spending projects. The tend is not our friend on this.
Part of this problem is higher interest rates…I think we are in for relatively high interest rates for a long time.
btw- Trump proposals/promises on the table lead to a much higher deficit over the coming years than do those of Harris.
“In the new analysis released by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the prominent nonpartisan think tank estimated Trump’s plans could add $7.75 trillion to the national debt over roughly the next decade, compared to an estimated $3.95 trillion boost for Harris’s policies.”
The projected deficit probably assumes no changes in tax policies and may also assume interest rates remain where they are now, inflation has reached the Fed target and the Fed funds rate ( and interest rates in general) are likely to be lower in the future.
I disagree about the interest rate prospects over the next decade…expecting higher levels than the last decade. One of the big reasons is that the deflationary effects of economic globalization will be going in reverse. Secondly, labor costs are going higher than the trend over the past decade (aging, immigration restrictions, ‘lying flat’ mentality).
And it is a sad state of affairs that raising taxes will bring in revenue to pay past debt interest rather than paying for constructive programs for the present and future. Its a sorry position to be in, especially for those who are under 60 years old.
Interest is in a sense the price of lending and borrowing. If the economy does badly as you believe it will, then demand for borrowing will be lower which will tend to result in lower interest rates. Also as population ages the proportion of money saved tends to go up so the supply of assets for lending wil tend to be high, this also pushes interest rates lower.
Why do you believe interest rates will be higher? Another factor is that an economy doing poorly tends to have lower aggregate demand which tends to result in lower inflation which tends to lower interest rates.
“Why do you believe interest rates will be higher?”
One reason is the gradual trend away from the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world transactions.
Secondly…a trend to toward protectionism.
Third…prospects for rising national debt load.
I readily admit that the economic effects of these macro forces are not an area of any expertise for me…just an interested observer. Thanks for your perspective.
the deflationary effects of economic globalization will be going in reverse.
I don’t see this happening. There have been a few disruptions for political reasons, but there are still vast armies of underemployed workers that could easily be integrated into the global economy.
One-time AGW denier now claims that global heating is inexorable, and that she has been stating this for 10 years, fooling her followers and numerous congressional testimonies where she claimed that climate change was no big deal. https://x.com/curryja/status/1852391605048905960
It turns out that climate deniers are becoming alarmists and that the previous believers are trying to place alarmists on a leash.
For example, yesterday on a climate change blog (ATTP), the moderator states when Tom Murphy’s name is mentioned:
“Tom Murphy’s viewpoint is so farfetched that he’s more or less ignored by the relevant communities of research.”
Because it’s no longer a research question when one has consensus. Finite & non-renewable has become an immutable law when it comes to FF. That’s why Thomas Murphy writes instead in journals such as “The Physics Teacher”, where he can explain how to educate the next generation: https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/61/6/512/2908242
Why would the American Institute of Physics publish this if it was far-fetched?
You have to realize that the primary purpose of climate denial isn’t really related to climate. The primary purpose of climate denial is simply to prevent any action that will hurt the fossil fuel industry.
If they can get away with saying there is no climate change, they will. If they can get away with saying the climate change is real, but not important, they will. If they can get away with saying that climate change is disastrous and therefore nothing should be done, they will.
Disaster is as good as cornucopiaism. Whatever works.
———————————
Murphy is fixated on limits to growth. Infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
He’s a crank, spreading serious misinformation.
Why would he get published? Well, he’s a physicist who i believe has done good work in unrelated areas. This may be an inhouse publication that will publish members’ writing without peer review.
“This may be an inhouse publication that will publish members’ writing without peer review.”
Are you kidding me? This is the teaching magazine for the American Institute of Physics. High school and college physics teacher have used material from this for ages. Impossible to believe they let junk through.
If Murphy was publishing a research article on some new mechanism, sure you can call him a crank, but not on stuff that’s this obvious to everyone with an open mind.
Well, the problem here is that Murphy is a physicist, not an economist, and he’s trying to do economics. He says things like “ Physics “owns” energy (and space and time if we’re being greedy), so energy and power domains offer rich opportunities for gaining new understanding.” This reveals the remarkable arrogance of a professional claiming “ownership” of an area that is far more complex and demanding than he admits.
He extrapolates growth rates out for 400 years as if it means something. It doesn’t. It’s deeply misleading. Again, infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
Why is this important? Well, if we focus on biophysical limits we’ll be distracted from the important things, which are political: we need to wrest power from the wealthy corporate sociopaths who are polluting our planet.
Get out and vote for the candidates that care about the environment!!!
If you really believed in the environment at all, you would be totally against all the extra mining that goes on for the “green revolution” or whatever you want to call it. You would have been campaigning against Thackery Pass lithium mine, you’d be up in arms against new coal plants being built for Aluminium smelters in Indonesia, you’d be campaigning against undersea mining, the list goes on, and on……..
Instead we get this from you ….. ” if we focus on biophysical limits we’ll be distracted from the important things”.
There is nothing more important than the biophysical limits and we are rapidly passing tipping point after tipping point of destruction of our only natural world that we depend upon. Your answer of destroying a lot more more so that we can do the destruction by a different means is not an answer at all.
Nick G ….. “Get out and vote for the candidates that care about the environment!!!”
One candidate wants to build way more mines, then destroy huge tracts of the natural world to build more ‘renewables’ which aren’t renewable at all, their replaceable.
The other wants to destroy the EPA and allow drill baby drill, is a liar rapist and felon..
Neither of those 2 choices really care about the environment at all, so who else is there??
Nickg, The economics at this point boil down to Jevon’s Paradox. We have all these non-renewable approaches going on and that just becomes an excuse to use up more fossil fuel. Jevon’s Paradox means that demand will not saturate soon, it just means that it opens up more applications to use energy, such as bitcoin mining and other things.
A book review, but note the paragraph beginning: ” These puzzling absences are not Susskind’s fault, but the fault of the Neoclassical school of economics to which he belongs. ……”
Where on Earth do you get this idea that growing in material reality forever being impossible is a crank’s disinformation? Are you simply not aware of entropy and even the effect of moderate growth levels for even supposed “immaterial” services people keep proposing as a way to prosper without obvious hard goods? Like the Internet, which because no one can see it, some fools believe we can latch our economic growth on forever, forgetting just how onerous that network is on the environment.
I don’t know how else to say it: to extrapolate growth rates out for 400 years is deeply misleading. Again, infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
Infinite growth isn’t needed. At some point growth in “stuff”, including energy, slows down and stops. You can only eat so many calories. You can only wear one pair of shoes at a time. You can only drive one car at a time. Etc. So, to pretend that the world’s economies might try to sustain infinite growth forever is deeply misleading.
Look at OECD car sales. Petroleum products sales. Electricity consumption. Washing machines. Home sales. They’ve all pretty much plateaued. It’s not because of affordability, it’s because demand has been saturated. Most people have enough stuff.
I seriously want to understand where this thinking comes from of Nick G and others. On the ATTP blog (which is consensus climate change), a geologist said this about Tom Murphy, when another commenter quoted Murphy:
“Dave_Geologist says:
“In other words, we reach the limit of physical resources.” This is bizarre.
But not for the reasons you think, Mike.
It’s blinding obvious why the rest of the physics community ignores him.”
We reach the limits of physical resources, but not for the reasons we think?
What other reasons other than finite & non-renewable do we need? Is there some other reason we are missing? Is t really alll about recycling of some new technological resource?
Nick G says:
” You can only drive one car at a time”
You can only do one bitcoin mining operation at a time. Yeah, sure.
Let’s get real, who needs bit coin ? I think your making Nick’s point.
Nick G, where to start on your naive notions.. Firstly, are you aware of entropy and what it means to all human built structures, whether a tea cup, a toaster, a bridge or building?
Are you aware that entropy is accompanied with dissipation back into the environment?
These 2 factors alone mean your idea of infinite growth not being needed is illogical..
We also suffer from lower ore grades on average of everything, more remote mines, deeper ores, harder ore indexes, and higher strip ratios on average. Simon Michaux came up with a new number from the literature just this week….
Despite all the efficiency gains made in mining, that can’t be repeated due to metal fatigue limits; since 1978 it now takes around 4.9 times the energy to produce a tonne of base metal (especially copper) as it did in 1978.
Even with maximum possible recycling, we will continue to need to mine more metals and minerals, which will keep growing in energy requirements to maintain whatever production level. It’s an immutable law of physics.
The earth contains something like 4.7 Trillion tonnes of gold in the crust and mantle combined, so we will never run out of gold, but it’s worth so much because it costs a great deal of energy to gain access to one ounce.
With unlimited cheap/free energy we could in theory mine billions of tonnes of many things, like copper, but in reality long before then, with a low enough ore grade, we could lose more copper to entropy from the equipment used in the process than is gained from the extreme low grade. There are indeed limits that no-one wants to think about!!
A whole lot more mining to just retain what we have is a sure way to do irreversible harm to the remaining ecosystem, on which we depend for our survival.
Plus there is the entirely overlooked aspect of mining always requiring fossil fuel products from coke to plastics to chemicals used in the floatation processes and smelting (90% of base metal mining), with zero alternatives.
Nick you never, ever consider a system approach, which is why it all sounds so easy from an economics point of view.
We are using lower and lower quality forms of energy to gain access to lower and lower ore grades of metals and minerals.
By this I mean the energy cost of energy is rising, while the ore grades are lowering, while the damage to the environment accelerates. What could go possibly go wrong?
Apart from everything…..
“Let’s get real, who needs bit coin ? I think your making Nick’s point.”
I guess Nick’s point is that everyone should enter a most frugal existence. Jimmy Carter was leaning that way.
I see you didn’t answer the question. You took the strawman approach for Nick assuming. Then wrapped him in a little Jimmy Carter negativism.
I don’t think being an EV advocate maintaining today’s transportation is some kind of frual approach.
Come on now. Everyone should get around by an eBike , if not a lightweight road bike. Fabian Cancellara likely won races with a battery hidden in the frame.
“Birds are telling us—in their behavior, in their dwindling numbers, in their silence—that we must take action now, and that we must take action where birds need us most, from the Arctic to Chile and everywhere in between.
“The most disturbing thing is not the clown show of speakers, but the cheering of the crowd”
Donald Trump’s FRIGHTENING Rally at Madison Square Garden
The Warning with Steve Schmidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHs5N1XRFE
“If this Republic survives the onslaught of fascism, we need to recommit to education. Funding Public Schools and make civics mandatory in High Schools.”
Robotaxi pioneer and saviour of humanity Elmo Musk was in top form
“saviour of humanity”
Survivalist, I sense this is part of your strawman argument against EV’s. I don’t believe most of the advocates here at POB of EV’s, think there going to save humanity. I see the use of ICE more like a twenty-five year old who drinks a fifth of whisky every night and an energy transition away from fossil fuel as committing to AA.
“Robotaxi ”
I agree a lot with Dennis on most subjects here, but don’t see robotaxi changing significantly purchasing habits of most Americans. We will see. On the other hand, I see self driving vehicles making trucking a lot more efficient in the future. When you remove the labor costs from trucking, the most cost efficient speed becomes about 45mph. This will cut the energy required in half. When the shit hits the fan, trucks will charge during the day and move during the night.
“Elmo Musk”
Is a danger to democracy and a total asshole.
Huntingtonbeach,
Perhaps you are correct, the assumption I make is that robotaxis (if they ever become a reality) will reduce the cost of travel to the point that owning a personal vehicle will become a choice rather than a necessity for most US citizens. It will mostly be the wealthy that will have the excess income to make such a choice. Currently ownership costs per mile are about 75 cents per mile for the average private vehicle, robotaxis at scale are expected to be about a third of current cost, some will choose to reduce their travel expenses by a factor of three, others may not.
Old men will be slow to change, but young people may make this choice.
I have been reading a lot of comments here and other places. Getting bombarded with a lot of instant news is upon us all.
There is just one important issue when it comes to the energy transition. Who gets the job done?
It is the biggest job out there, and it is a long one lasting over several decades. To work towards the best well thought out targets is the best psychological sound way to work and approach the big task imo.
Populist leaders could derail the effort for some time. I keep going back to leadership theory where Drexel claims that you have to clearly state the objectives, they have to be obtainable and you also have to have the by-in from most participants.
What comes to mind as a solution is a D. Eisenhower personality type. Pretty ruthless when it comes obtaining objectives, but the guy that gets the job done. He was a Republican and did what he had to do even if the circumstances at the time was full speed ahead. Much easier than today.
The main point of this post is that it is a big job to be done. It is much better with all hands on deck with a somewhat sensible direction going ahead with an administration that can get the job done. Unless relying on oppression mainly. Then we are back at how you could get ahead in a poor let’s say 1700s society. And without a doubt it will be a ruthless judgement for failure if that materialises in todays situation. That failure is not neccessary in parts of the world with a lot of privileges currently (i.e. a lot of rings to peel of the onion of prosperity).
Kolbeinih,
Eisenhower would not recognize today’s Republican party and would be considered a Rino (Republican in name only) by most Republicans in national office today. Even Reagan was far more liberal than many Republicans today, it is too bad that Bush doesn’t have the balls to speak out against Trump who clearly has fascist leanings and chose Madison Square Garden to reenact the February 20, 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden. The “enemy within” nonsense spewed by Trump is right out of the Hitler and Mussolini playbooks as is the threat to use the military against Trump’s political opposition (the so called enemy within.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden
What is unfortunate is that we didn’t have the 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters outside Madison Square Garden in 2024 like there was in February 1939.
Don’t look for a leader to be out in front on these issues. Leaders will follow the general will of the populace on energy and climate adaptation attempts, in democracies anyway.
I believe Xi is primarily motivated by avoidance of energy poverty for the country. Not a bad goal.
Hickory,
Probably correct, I think the point is that a well executed plan can accomplish quite a bit, I agree the population has to support the effort. In the US it is difficult for the government to accomplish much today as much of the nation distrusts the government, this was much less of a problem in 1952 in the US.
The energy transition may be left to the market, probably not the most efficient path forward. Tariffs will make it even less efficient, if we get Trump and he follows through with his promises.
Xi is also scared of protests over environmental problems like air pollution, tainted food, epidemics etc. I think the Communists think that that is one issue that could lead to mass protests in the huge dense cities of Eastern China.
That’s why they have a greenish tinge despite their generally thuggish nature. It’s not like America, where environmentalists are laughed at as hippies.
In China they execute corrupt CEOs. In America, we give them cabinet positions and thank them for their service.
And, they got to visit Epstein’s island on the Lolita Express to sample illicit wares. Wonder who’s filled in for Epstein?
Consequences will get the job done.
Six or seven years ago there were a few “experts “ who were saying Indian and Chinese coal plant would be stranded assets in just a couple of years.
https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-is-set-to-remain-broadly-flat-through-2025
The reason they were wrong is they ignored the potential demand growth of electricity in these countries.
India now burns as much coal as Europe and the United States combined.
Some have recently indicated that world is close to peak global CO2 emissions day.
To the contrary I guess it will come in the next decade, and then decline slowly after that.
Regardless of the moment, CO2 is on track to continue with accumulation in the atmosphere for the rest of the century.
On electricity demand…globally demand is in a sharp uptrend. Many reasons, including how much more air conditioners people are deploying in an attempt to survive fossil fuel warming.
The problem with peak emissions day is that it’s not even close to a victory. since the cumulative airborne CO2 will continue to rise, only slight;y slowing.
Peak Oil looks a bit quaint in comparison, as the other side of peak is a true decline.
“According to current projections the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration could reach between 540 and 970 parts per million (ppm) by the end of the century”
The permafrost is already breaking up, this will release as much co2 and methane as humans have done. Nothing can stop it now.
Somebody should add a Wikipedia entry for Peak Airborne CO2 Concentration, and the intro should read “Sorry, this entry is a joke as there will not be a peak likely for the next few centuries. Deal with it. “
Six or seven years ago there were a few “experts “ who were saying Indian and Chinese coal plant would be stranded assets in just a couple of years.
China’s National Energy Administration thinks China has overinvested in coal-fired power plants.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-overinvested-coal-power-heres-why
Coal plants are running at less than half capacity.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/ci/research-analysis/chinas-record-coal-capacity-approvals-in-2022-carbon-targets.html
A lot coal is running a a loss in China
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plants-set-become-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/
Alim
Been reading stories like that for 10 years.
Some underutilised plants in China may shut down leaving the ones running to operate at higher rates.
One thing for sure the amount of coal, oil and gas burning on top of deforestation, forest fires and soil destruction is pushing the world into catastrophic collapse.
LOADSOFOIL
Actually you haven’t been reading things like this for ten years. Coal plant utilization was significantly higher ten years ago, and solar and wind were significantly more expensive. Also battery prices have crashed and China has built a lot of pumped hydro storage, pushing round-the- clock production towards the margins.
If you think nothing has changed in the energy industry in the last ten years, you are living in a dream world.
But you aren’t alone. It’s weird how many comments around here are based on “facts” that are just made up.
Alim
Why don’t you go do something positive then you won’t be so angry all the time.
https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/Stranded-Assets-and-Subcritical-Coal.pdf
They just retro fitted them ha
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
China burned more coal last year then ever!!
India burned more coal last year then ever. This is the highly positive report by India Ministry of coal on how much coal they are burning
https://coal.gov.in/en/major-statistics/production-and-supplies
Thanks for all the non sequitur remarks. Dream on.
“To hell with democracy,” they essentially said. “There’s money to be made!”
Talk about low EROEI
“To sequester the CO2 from 1 tonne of coal combustion, it typically takes around 25-30% of the energy produced by burning that tonne of coal; this translates to roughly 5-6 gigajoules of energy needed to capture and store the CO2 produced.” consider a this very rough estimate
source?
“source?”
Don’t really need a source, just logic. For the amount of CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, about 1/2 has permanently remained in the atmosphere, and much of the rest is sitting near the surface of the ocean, ready to outgas again, to keep the levels near 50/50 for centuries to come.
Now consider how much effort it will take to continuously filter out the CO2 that has been emitted for 150 years. It’s essentially the same as running every known smokestack and tailpipe exhaust IN REVERSE for the same amount of time and then burying the waste.
They don’t want anyone to think of the absurdity of this, and that some magic filter will come along. Some think it is just more vegetation.
” to continuously filter out the CO2 that has been emitted for 150 years. It’s essentially the same as running every known smokestack and tailpipe exhaust IN REVERSE ”
That’s only true if you want to recreate hydrocarbons. I don’t think you have to. I believe carbon can be captured with various chemical reactions that require much less energy.
“I don’t think you have to. I believe carbon can be captured with various chemical reactions that require much less energy.”
CO2 is already a low-energy state molecule. I know many people have this intuition that gases can’t weigh anything but 0.04% of the atmosphere is a huge mass. It has to be buried somewhere, along with whatever chemical material is acting as the reagent. If you think it’s pure CO2, then that’s dry ice you’re thinking of burying.
Here’s a factoid to consider — if CO2 was actually straightforward to remove from the air, why doesn’t a SodaStream carbonation unit include a mechanism to just extract CO2 from the air? How hard can it be? Why must we buy the CO2 cartridges, which seems an awful waste of shipping and storage.
“California Landlord Fired After Bragging About Stealing Tenants’ Ballots, Using Them to Vote for Trump”
Pretty minor for one of our repug friends.
Another job is waiting for sure—-
Hightrekker:
I’d love to use that bit. Source?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14019641/Russia-fines-Google-money-world.html
GOOGLE fined 20 Decillion dollars by Russian court.
IT’s easy to see where this comes from. They read about ridiculous punitive penalties in lawsuits in America so they think it’s OK to do it in Russia too. But they don’t really have any concept of big numbers.
To me this is just another example of how Russia is culturally and intellectually dependent on America, and a lot of what they do is a parody of what they see on American TV, which is utterly ridiculous to start with.
Putin reminds me a lot of the Vandal king Gaiseric, who dedicated his life to destroying the Roman empire. When he died his kingdom collapsed, his only heritage was ruining forever the proud name of his ancestors, in whose names he claimed to be fighting.
October 31, Indira Gandhi assassinated
Dennis,
Posting this one here in non-petroleum in response to some of your comments on the other side about debt.
I have never spent the time to completely understand the discussion/debate around debt. So, my comment here is a sincere question based on a lack of understanding.
Counter examples like Japan and Spain have always made this topic seem uncertain to me even without trying to understand all of the economic fundamentals.
However, I do wonder if demographic change in the rest of the century will settle this more clearly. If we really head towards something like 4-7 B by the end of the century, won’t that mean that growth will cease and that repayment of existing debts will become that much harder?
Thanks
A few thoughts,
Debt can be erased: thats what bankruptcy is all about. National insolvency is common: see “This time is different: 8 centuries of financial folly”, by Reinhart.
A key factor is the relationship between lender and buyer: is the transaction between different arms of the same government (e.g., US Social Security Fund and Federal Government; Japanese Post Office and Japanese Government)?
Interest rates: if growth is zero, rates will be too (they can even go negative). Debt management will be easy.
Is debt in the currency of the borrower? Do exchange rates float? If both is yes (e.g., the US), debt management is much easier. If not (e.g., Greece) then things are very hard.
Nick. Yes government debt can be “erased”, but consequences can include loss of the ability to fund what have been considered essential services and entitlements, and severe devaluation of the currency, savings, and assets like real estate. Long austerity ending in a lower place. Those are part of the risk bundle.
I know some debt is ok while you are growing, or as an individual fully employed.
But to assume we will always be in a growth environment, as government projections on solvency and debt service do, is a recipe for failure. A gamble on the perpetual rosy scenario.
To service the debt-
“As of October 2024 it costs $1133 billion to maintain the [Federal Gov] debt, which is 17% of the total federal spending in fiscal year 2024”
That seems like a waste of money to me, and risky. We are in a growing economy. Shouldn’t debt service be much less of the annual budget….less than 10% say? Unless perhaps we were in a severe emergency like ww2.
Most people don’t want to admit it, but our nations funding of the elderly (medicare and SS) is probably 20 years past the level of what is sustainable for a growing economy. At some point that will change the hard way, with huge disruption to the society.
Hickory,
I agree that the US deficit is way too large. This is NOT the result of excess spending, and SS & Medicare expenses are perfectly sustainable. This is the result of inadequate taxation. The wealthy have disproportionate power so they pay disproportionately low taxes, starting with Reagan.
As for the effects of sovereign default: have you read the book I suggested? It would help, I think. A very quick summary: sovereign default is far more common than you might think, and very often much less damaging than you might expect.
There is also a lot of confusion between debt and government debt. This is driven by right wing ideologues trying to undermine civil society.
In fact, most debt is private debt. When discussions of total debt veer off into discussions of government debt, you can see the brainwashing has worked.
I am more risk averse than many of you, preferring more cautious financial status for myself and the country. I prefer to be on firmer footing when the inevitable instability shocks come around.
Oh, I agree with a sensible fiscal policy: deficits only during recessions, surpluses during periods of strong growth. I think most sensible people do.
Sadly, Republicans (controlled by the wealthy) do not. Reagan started the strategy of cutting taxes to cripple government, deficit be damned. Biden, for better or worse, was the first democratic president to break free from this strategy, ignore the deficit and spend on neglected priorities like climate and infrastructure.
Not a good overall situation, but not quite as bad as some suggest.
Thanks Nick, I will check out that reference.
T Hill,
If there are fewer people there will be less demand for debt, basically it is the ratio of debt to GDP for all credit (excluding financial corporations) in all sectors (both public and private) that is important. There are wide disparities between nations in their level of debt, the average debt to GDP from 2002 to 2024 for all reportinh nations and groups is shown in chart below. Mexico had the lowest debt to GDP at 60 and Netherlands had the highest average at 367 over the 2001Q4 to 2024Q1 period. The advanced nations tend to be between 200 and 300 for Debt to GDP with a few that are higher than 300. The G20 economies have an average of 228 and Euro area is 246, US is 244 (averages over 2001Q4 to 2024Q1 period).
Debt is largely the consequence of the need for liquidity in an economic system which is fundamentally endogenous. In an economic system which is exogenous debt must equal savings because that is the only source of money ( deposits). Not so in an endogenous monetary system where deposits are created in return for collateral – this is how banks create deposits.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=4637150
if one wants to read more.
rgds
Thanks Dennis. Everything you said in this reply makes sense to me.
There is one point/period in time that I am having trouble with. I believe that my baseline assumption mirrors your own that global population will peak and decline this century. At the point that such a transition occurs, economic growth would also seem likely to end. However, prior debt will remain and it would therefore seem difficult to make good on the debt. Yes?
I take Nick G’s point as indicating that debt has been repeatedly destroyed throughout history by the equivalent of bankruptcy up to and including nation states. I guess my question is prompted by a desire to understand the process and, perhaps, thereby avoid the pain that seems to come with such rebalancing.
T Hill,
There might be an increase in debt to GDP for a short time, but note that there will still be some growth as real GDP per capita grows at about 1.5% per year so until population reaches a 1.5% decline rate we may continue to have some growth. Also keep in mind that the term on a loan is limited and how much is loaned is dependent on income (think of mortgages and typical loan to income ratio maximums of about 3.2). So as GDP grows more slowly, debt will grow more slowly as well. In short GDP grows more slowly and debt also grows more slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Federal_interest_payments_2023.webp
How slowly is growing gvt interest of the US?
Here is US Federal expeditures as a % of GDP. Not really a problem and as interest rates come down due to falling inflation the interest expenditures will fall as they did from 1991 to 2002.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
and
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA
The chart combines the data from the links above, fed interest expenditures divided by GDP.
Dennis
We are going to find out over the next decade how a declining population and a declining working population will cope with massive debt.
China has already passed peak working population and that will decline by over 100 million in the next 15 year. 100 million more retirees supported by 100 million less people working.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
Advanced economies total debt to GDP over time 2010 to 2024. This is credit to the non-financial sector for all sectors public and private.
This is US public deficit to GDP %.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
The trend is very clear.
Yeah the trend is that Republican presidents trash the place.
@ Dennis
Public debt is not the same as private debt. It is not the same risks.
The situation of the US (high public debt – 126% of GDP) is not similar to the situation of Switzerland (low public debt – 36% of GDP).
Public debt is a much critical indicator.
Countries with high public debt have structural problems and are often in serious political crisis.
Sceptic,
You said debt, not public debt in your original comment. I disagree, all debt matters, nothing special about public debt.
This is your opinion, but the examples of countries with public debts exceeding 100% of GDP show that these countries are often in emergency situations, very difficult to manage, not to say in serious political crises, with austerity policies.
We are no longer in 1950, when we could rebuild everything with abundant and cheap oil. Now easy growth in energy production no longer exists. So a bad debt becomes an unpayable debt in the longer term.
Sceptic,
Public Debt in Japan was over 100% from 1999Q2 to 2024Q1. It has been over 200% since 2018Q4. Belgium has had public debt over 100% since 2009Q2, other examples of nations with public debt over 100% for many quarters are US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and Singapore. There are some cases where this causes a crisis such as Greece, but for most advanced economies it is not a problem. If nations want lower debt levels they choose to collect more taxes, it really is that simple.
Total debt is probably more important in looking at the economy, some believe public debt is bad and private debt id good, I don’t think it matters much and in fact the whole debt is bad argument has little basis in fact. There are differences in opinion on this in economics, I don’t find the opinions arguing for austerity in the face of a recession very convincing, J.M. Keynes gave some pretty good arguments and the entire Keynesian tradition and the neoclassical synthesis of the 60s and 70s along with neo-Keynesian arguments all lend considerable weight to this view.
There can be too much debt, probably over 330% total debt to GDP (this is public and private debt) is a problem long term. At that point we nee to either raise taxes or cut spending (or some of both), legislators just need to reach a compromise and act.
I do not support this or that policy to solve the equation, I say that political crises and austerity are realities that affect countries with high public debt.
Of course, the most powerful actors are both judge and party. This allows them not to be punished as harshly as Greece has been for now. But if the trend persists, it is only a matter of time before reality catches up with these players as well.
And peak oil creates a global context that is unfavourable to growth, which adds to the risks that existed in the past. This significantly reduces the prospects for economic recovery in the event of an excessive government debt.
Presently it is no longer possible to rule out a serious default on US debt.
And we are talking about the largest public debt in the world!
Do you seriously think that the game will go on indefinitely with US public debt?
easy growth in energy production no longer exists.
If that’s central to your perspective you need to rethink it. Solar power growth is easy and cheap, and is easily scalable as far as needed.
There is no debt crisis. Understand commercial banks buying government bonds is viewed by the banks as risk free money.
If banks are paying 1.5%-2.5% on deposits. Their assets which are the government bonds are yielding 4.5%-5.0%. The banks are pocketing the spread.
What is 2.0%-3.0% on say $10 billion dollars? If your a bank you’ll load up and buy all you can.
As the economy sinks banks will loan money to the government instead of loaning money into the economy.
No Nick, again you are totally wrong. The entire renewable agenda as a replacement for fossil fuels cannot work and is far more expensive than than the cheap fossil fuels we’ve been using.
It’s you that needs to rethink. Despite the number of times that I clearly show how a new Aluminium smelter in Indonesia is vastly cheaper to set up and run off coal fired power, by a factor of 10 compared to setting up the same via solar and batteries, you just the deny the reality staring you in the face.
We’ve only been able to have the modern civilization we actually have because of abundant, cheap to access fossil fuels and high grade ore bodies that Earth’s processes concentrated for us over many millions to billions of years.
We’ve used up all the easiest to get resources with the remaining ones much more energy intensive to gain access to, while in the process badly damaged the climate and ecosystem, to the point of pushing our climate to uncontrolled heating, that will be very damaging to not only ourselves but the remainder of the natural world.
Your concept of doing more damage to keep the technological civilization going as long as possible just leads to a harder collapse when it comes as we use fossil fuels to make all the new systems you want us to grow.
As money is the human token for energy exchange, when our energy availability declines, the competition for the remaining energy will push the price of everything up rapidly. Much of the population will be unable to afford what they do now as basics of life become rapidly more important, sending economies into rapid recession, exactly as Sceptic has stated.
As even coal and gas rely upon oil products for their own production, oil is the master resource, so when it goes into decline so does everything else. It’s a physical certainty that oil production will go into decline at some point, so the future is also certainly not trying to produce more oil, it’s a dead end.
However believing in fantasies does not help our situation at all, it just promotes more business as usual of growth, instead of admitting the reality of modern civilization being in massive, not minor, overshoot.
Sceptic,
Forever is a long time indeed, for next 100 years or so, I think the US will be fine, beyond that the World will be so different, the question may look like the manure crisis in New York City in 1910. If public deficits become a problem, reintoduce the income tax rates of 1945 to 1970 (adjusted for inflation) and deficits become surpluses. The solution is something any child could devise.
BIS data on general government debt (aka public debt). Average for 2021Q4 to 2024Q1. Click on chart for larger view.
Average is good, but you can also look at the dynamic trend. As it is not a static situation.
In 2019, US gvt debt was 108%. Now it is 121%.
And interest is now higher then it was, growth is lower.
It is not normal trend. It is very dangerous trend.
And the US public debt is not the Greek public debt.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252218
KD will not be popular on this site (climate change denialism) but he is very good at some things.
One is analysing Government financing and accounting.
His latest analysis above.
Skeptic I showed the dynamic trend earlier for total Debt, for US public debt it has risen to high levels since the pandemic, higher taxes are needed to bring it lower, lower interest rates will also help a bit.
@Dennis
No politician wants to achieve your higher taxes – because it would mean a recession program and the end of the “American dream”.
This is why the Democrats may even prefer to give power back to D.Trump. Who is going to redress the American public debt?
Certainly not Trump…
Only a world war III could cancel this debt.
higher taxes…would mean a recession program
How about avoiding tax cuts when growth is strong? Unnecessary tax cuts are our central problem. Tax increases when growth is strong are also safe, and far better than interest rate increases, as we have now.
Sceptic,
Tax rates were very high in the US from 1945 to 1970 and the economy mostly did very well. So economic history disproves your hypothesis.
@Dennis
Yes, between 1945 and 1970, energy was growing very sharply, promoting very strong growth.
The current US dynamic is very different.
And China has become the centre of manufacturing production.
What remains in the US is the largest public debt in the world.
Sceptic,
You said that high tax rates lead to recession, not really true. If the public want balanced budgets, then either spending must be reduced or taxes must be increased, that’s the way a budget works. I agree with Hickory that public spending makes more sense than holding taxes steady. For those with high income, a much smaller proportion of income is spent, most is saved and the old classical economics notion that savings will become private investment is nonsense as Keynes understood very well. High tax rates on the wealthy will allow more productive public investment which will lead to higher economic growth, exactly the reverse of what you surmise.
The public debt is properly measured against GDP. The US public debt to GDP is very much in line with the advanced nation average. Average annual growth rates in the US have been higher than the high income nation average.
Chart of US and high income nation average from 2010 to 2023.
“You said that high tax rates lead to recession” – Yes.
You answer as if the current context had no influence on reality.
We are no longer in 1945, nor in 1970 nor in 2008.
We are in 2024.
The current US public debt + peak oil + US deindustrialization + the change in economic gravity towards Asia + rising interest rates = very difficult context for the US.
And there is no indication that this context will change easily.
On the contrary, everything shows that the American political context is heading for disaster.
GPlease give concrete arguments about context switching.
What are the American capacities to change the trend?
In which areas is the US recovering?
Goldman Sachs on battery prices
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/electric-vehicle-battery-prices-are-expected-to-fall-almost-50-percent-by-2025
Prices are falling quickly. The main drivers are lower metal prices, better battery pack design and better battery chemistry. They don’t explicitly mention more efficient production methods, but it probably plays a role as well.
Alimbiquated,
Replying here in the non-oil thread to one of your posts on the oil side.
You note that “…in American cities most land is exclusively reserved for single family homes…” Can you cite a source in support of this? I suspect you are referring to some press articles in the last few years that estimate this for the fraction of residential zoning in cities, but not all land within city boundaries. Correct?
Also, you note that “…land use is hopelessly inefficient. This in turn is the cause of decaying infrastructure…”. I disagree. Physical infrastructure may ‘decay’ for a host of reasons including factors such as metal corrosion and freeze-thaw induced cracking.
Based on your prior posts, I suspect your point is instead about the relative efficiency and/or sustainability of dense urban areas vs lower density cities or rural areas. That dense urban cities are the epitome of sustainability seems to be a commonly held belief within US urban planning circles. However, there is relatively little high-quality research that I have been able to find on this question, and what there is provides a number of examples which do not support such a conclusion.
T HILL
Zoning maps are generally available for all cities.
Here’s Los Angeles:
https://paulineaclaussen.blogspot.com/2020/06/los-angeles-zoning-map-pdf.html
They can sometimes be a pain to find though, especially since cities have switched to interactive maps which are usually slow.
Physical infrastructure may ‘decay’ for a host of reasons including factors such as metal corrosion and freeze-thaw induced cracking.
Physical infrastructure decays when it is not maintained. For example, the town in Tennessee where I come from has a planned street repair cycle of 18 years. In other words each street would be repaired every 18 years unless something special came up.
A childhood friend of mine became city manager about 30 years ago. The 70s and 80s had seen a massive expansion of the street network as new suburbs and malls were built, and the old town was gradually abandoned. When he took office, the 18 year cycle had slipped to 42 years. There were simply too many streets for the city to maintain. His reaction was to put brakes on greenfield building and street expansion and focus development on areas of pre-existing infrastructure.
I would be curious to see some of your examples of research. It’s pretty obviously nonsense to claim you can go on expanding road sewage etc forever without growing the tax base to maintain it.
https://drudgereport.com/?NF=1
Liz Cheney’s response
https://x.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1852292100844621974
This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant. #Womenwillnotbesilenced #VoteKamala
He did not call for her execution. His characterization of her as a hawk is valid and his comments about guns pointing at her changing her militant viewpoint was asinine, stupid and inappropriate but in character.
Another reason why I hate the media: He didn’t call for her execution, he fantasized about her facing soldiers shooting at her as if she were engaged in combat herself. Trump is still a deranged rapist fraudulent thug, but the media completely undermines itself again and again and again.
The Nazi’s built prisons for their political opponents and homosexuals first. Then used them for the Jews. Mike you need to get real. Trump talks in code and doesn’t put anything in writing. This is to skirt the law and part of the process of normalizing vilance and hate. He is preparing you for what he plans to do if he gets back into power.
I suspect your in denial and don’t really understand the gravity of the momnet. November 5 will be the most important day in history of your life. He will change the world order that was set after WWll.
You can learn from history or repeat it
The Drudge Report is not really considered the media.
Drudge Report also had this for a headline
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbZTsraaoAAPM_p.jpg
Mike B,
I believe he said 9 guns shooting at her face, now unless we assume those guns are not wielded by someone with very poor aim and the guns are not squirt guns, generally 9 bullets to the face will result in death. He did not “say” she should be executed though. So the media is drawing inappropriate conclusions perhaps.
The plausible deniability comes from the part where he gave her one gun.
A firing squad is typically 5 rifles, with 1 rifle filled with a blank. Yet, with Trump’s penchant for exaggerating everything. it would be unlikely he would say just 5.
Nevermind, he’s taken up mime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AebaA1AF9w
Leeg,
Good video thx.
The Economist Magazine on Trump
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/31/a-second-trump-term-comes-with-unacceptable-risks
Excerpt:
NEXT WEEK tens of millions of Americans will vote for Donald Trump. Some will do so out of grievance, because they think Kamala Harris is a radical Marxist who will destroy their country. Some are fired up by national pride, because Mr Trump inspires in them the belief that, with him in the White House, America will stand tall. Yet some will coolly opt to vote Trump as a calculated risk.
This last group of voters, which includes many readers of The Economist, may not see Mr Trump as a person they would want to do business with, or any kind of role model for their children. But they probably think that when he was president he did more good than bad. They may also believe the case against him is wildly overblown. Central to this calculation is the idea that Mr Trump’s worst instincts would be constrained: by his staff, the bureaucracy, Congress and the courts.
This newspaper sees that argument as recklessly complacent. America may well breeze through four more years of Mr Trump, as it has the presidencies of other flawed men from both parties. The country may even thrive. But voters claiming to be hard-headed are overlooking the tail risk of a Trump presidency. By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
Some will dismiss this as alarmism. It is true that our worst fears about Mr Trump’s first term did not come to pass. At home, he cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which has grown faster than any of its rich-world counterparts. His administration deserves credit for funding vaccines for covid-19, even if he refused to urge Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he projected strength, shifting the consensus towards a confrontational posture on China. He helped broker the Abraham accords, which formalised relations between Israel and some of its neighbours—a peace that has so far survived a regional war. He prodded some of America’s allies to increase their defence spending. Even when Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutions held firm.
If The Economist failed to foresee so much in 2016, why heed our warning now? The answer is that today the risks are larger. And that is because Mr Trump’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers.
Make America grate again
The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republican platform was still caught between the Mitt Romney party and the Trump party. Today’s version is more extreme. Mr Trump favours a 20% tariff on all imports and has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. He proposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs and American children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blithe indifference to sound fiscal management.
These policies would be inflationary, potentially setting up a conflict with the Federal Reserve. They would risk igniting a trade war that would ultimately impoverish America. The combination of inflation, out-of-control deficits and institutional decay would bring forward the day when foreigners worry about lending the US Treasury unlimited money.
…
the article continues, if you register with the economist you can read it for free (if you are not already a subscriber).
Good editorial.
My only disappointment is that they bend over backward to find “good” things to say about his first term – few of them stand up to scrutiny.
It smacks of appeasement. So many people and institutions that should have fought tooth and nail have been cowards like Bezos.
True, we could deal with interest payments on debt load of an aging country by raising taxes.
But I’d rather see any tax increase used for direct payment of more productive investments than just paying interest on past debt accumulation. We could come up with a very big list of useful spending projects. The tend is not our friend on this.
Part of this problem is higher interest rates…I think we are in for relatively high interest rates for a long time.
btw- Trump proposals/promises on the table lead to a much higher deficit over the coming years than do those of Harris.
“In the new analysis released by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the prominent nonpartisan think tank estimated Trump’s plans could add $7.75 trillion to the national debt over roughly the next decade, compared to an estimated $3.95 trillion boost for Harris’s policies.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4957188-trump-harris-proposals-cost-analysis/
Much more importantly- he is a morally decrepit person with deep authoritarian tendencies.
Lets not put down the morally decrepit by comparing them to Trump.
Hickory,
The projected deficit probably assumes no changes in tax policies and may also assume interest rates remain where they are now, inflation has reached the Fed target and the Fed funds rate ( and interest rates in general) are likely to be lower in the future.
I disagree about the interest rate prospects over the next decade…expecting higher levels than the last decade. One of the big reasons is that the deflationary effects of economic globalization will be going in reverse. Secondly, labor costs are going higher than the trend over the past decade (aging, immigration restrictions, ‘lying flat’ mentality).
And it is a sad state of affairs that raising taxes will bring in revenue to pay past debt interest rather than paying for constructive programs for the present and future. Its a sorry position to be in, especially for those who are under 60 years old.
So that means that interest income will become a large part of federal revenue. Expense=income.
rgds
Vince
Hickory,
Interest is in a sense the price of lending and borrowing. If the economy does badly as you believe it will, then demand for borrowing will be lower which will tend to result in lower interest rates. Also as population ages the proportion of money saved tends to go up so the supply of assets for lending wil tend to be high, this also pushes interest rates lower.
Why do you believe interest rates will be higher? Another factor is that an economy doing poorly tends to have lower aggregate demand which tends to result in lower inflation which tends to lower interest rates.
“Why do you believe interest rates will be higher?”
One reason is the gradual trend away from the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world transactions.
Secondly…a trend to toward protectionism.
Third…prospects for rising national debt load.
I readily admit that the economic effects of these macro forces are not an area of any expertise for me…just an interested observer. Thanks for your perspective.
HICKORY
the deflationary effects of economic globalization will be going in reverse.
I don’t see this happening. There have been a few disruptions for political reasons, but there are still vast armies of underemployed workers that could easily be integrated into the global economy.
One-time AGW denier now claims that global heating is inexorable, and that she has been stating this for 10 years, fooling her followers and numerous congressional testimonies where she claimed that climate change was no big deal.
https://x.com/curryja/status/1852391605048905960
This was in response to this discussion:
https://theconversation.com/earths-climate-will-keep-changing-long-after-humanity-hits-net-zero-emissions-our-research-shows-why-241692
It turns out that climate deniers are becoming alarmists and that the previous believers are trying to place alarmists on a leash.
For example, yesterday on a climate change blog (ATTP), the moderator states when Tom Murphy’s name is mentioned:
Because it’s no longer a research question when one has consensus. Finite & non-renewable has become an immutable law when it comes to FF. That’s why Thomas Murphy writes instead in journals such as “The Physics Teacher”, where he can explain how to educate the next generation:
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/61/6/512/2908242
Why would the American Institute of Physics publish this if it was far-fetched?
Paul,
You have to realize that the primary purpose of climate denial isn’t really related to climate. The primary purpose of climate denial is simply to prevent any action that will hurt the fossil fuel industry.
If they can get away with saying there is no climate change, they will. If they can get away with saying the climate change is real, but not important, they will. If they can get away with saying that climate change is disastrous and therefore nothing should be done, they will.
Disaster is as good as cornucopiaism. Whatever works.
———————————
Murphy is fixated on limits to growth. Infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
He’s a crank, spreading serious misinformation.
Why would he get published? Well, he’s a physicist who i believe has done good work in unrelated areas. This may be an inhouse publication that will publish members’ writing without peer review.
NickG, Curry could also be incoherent, a Dominionist, or prepping for a Democratic administration. Can’t read her mind.
As for Tom Murphy, I don’t see anything wrong with his paper https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/61/6/512/2908242
Are you kidding me? This is the teaching magazine for the American Institute of Physics. High school and college physics teacher have used material from this for ages. Impossible to believe they let junk through.
If Murphy was publishing a research article on some new mechanism, sure you can call him a crank, but not on stuff that’s this obvious to everyone with an open mind.
Well, the problem here is that Murphy is a physicist, not an economist, and he’s trying to do economics. He says things like “ Physics “owns” energy (and space and time if we’re being greedy), so energy and power domains offer rich opportunities for gaining new understanding.” This reveals the remarkable arrogance of a professional claiming “ownership” of an area that is far more complex and demanding than he admits.
He extrapolates growth rates out for 400 years as if it means something. It doesn’t. It’s deeply misleading. Again, infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
Why is this important? Well, if we focus on biophysical limits we’ll be distracted from the important things, which are political: we need to wrest power from the wealthy corporate sociopaths who are polluting our planet.
Get out and vote for the candidates that care about the environment!!!
Unbelievable drivel Nick.
If you really believed in the environment at all, you would be totally against all the extra mining that goes on for the “green revolution” or whatever you want to call it. You would have been campaigning against Thackery Pass lithium mine, you’d be up in arms against new coal plants being built for Aluminium smelters in Indonesia, you’d be campaigning against undersea mining, the list goes on, and on……..
Instead we get this from you ….. ” if we focus on biophysical limits we’ll be distracted from the important things”.
There is nothing more important than the biophysical limits and we are rapidly passing tipping point after tipping point of destruction of our only natural world that we depend upon. Your answer of destroying a lot more more so that we can do the destruction by a different means is not an answer at all.
Nick G ….. “Get out and vote for the candidates that care about the environment!!!”
One candidate wants to build way more mines, then destroy huge tracts of the natural world to build more ‘renewables’ which aren’t renewable at all, their replaceable.
The other wants to destroy the EPA and allow drill baby drill, is a liar rapist and felon..
Neither of those 2 choices really care about the environment at all, so who else is there??
Nickg, The economics at this point boil down to Jevon’s Paradox. We have all these non-renewable approaches going on and that just becomes an excuse to use up more fossil fuel. Jevon’s Paradox means that demand will not saturate soon, it just means that it opens up more applications to use energy, such as bitcoin mining and other things.
Tom Murphy is correct in his critique of mainstream economics. Another critique here, by Steve Keen :
https://theideasletter.substack.com/p/reckoning-with-growth
A book review, but note the paragraph beginning: ” These puzzling absences are not Susskind’s fault, but the fault of the Neoclassical school of economics to which he belongs. ……”
Where on Earth do you get this idea that growing in material reality forever being impossible is a crank’s disinformation? Are you simply not aware of entropy and even the effect of moderate growth levels for even supposed “immaterial” services people keep proposing as a way to prosper without obvious hard goods? Like the Internet, which because no one can see it, some fools believe we can latch our economic growth on forever, forgetting just how onerous that network is on the environment.
I don’t know how else to say it: to extrapolate growth rates out for 400 years is deeply misleading. Again, infinite growth is a straw man. The US and OECD have already saturated demand for hard goods & energy and the same will happen with developing countries.
Infinite growth isn’t needed. At some point growth in “stuff”, including energy, slows down and stops. You can only eat so many calories. You can only wear one pair of shoes at a time. You can only drive one car at a time. Etc. So, to pretend that the world’s economies might try to sustain infinite growth forever is deeply misleading.
Look at OECD car sales. Petroleum products sales. Electricity consumption. Washing machines. Home sales. They’ve all pretty much plateaued. It’s not because of affordability, it’s because demand has been saturated. Most people have enough stuff.
I seriously want to understand where this thinking comes from of Nick G and others. On the ATTP blog (which is consensus climate change), a geologist said this about Tom Murphy, when another commenter quoted Murphy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/10/16/climate-risk/#comment-222738
We reach the limits of physical resources, but not for the reasons we think?
What other reasons other than finite & non-renewable do we need? Is there some other reason we are missing? Is t really alll about recycling of some new technological resource?
Nick G says:
You can only do one bitcoin mining operation at a time. Yeah, sure.
Let’s get real, who needs bit coin ? I think your making Nick’s point.
Nick G, where to start on your naive notions.. Firstly, are you aware of entropy and what it means to all human built structures, whether a tea cup, a toaster, a bridge or building?
Are you aware that entropy is accompanied with dissipation back into the environment?
These 2 factors alone mean your idea of infinite growth not being needed is illogical..
We also suffer from lower ore grades on average of everything, more remote mines, deeper ores, harder ore indexes, and higher strip ratios on average. Simon Michaux came up with a new number from the literature just this week….
Despite all the efficiency gains made in mining, that can’t be repeated due to metal fatigue limits; since 1978 it now takes around 4.9 times the energy to produce a tonne of base metal (especially copper) as it did in 1978.
Even with maximum possible recycling, we will continue to need to mine more metals and minerals, which will keep growing in energy requirements to maintain whatever production level. It’s an immutable law of physics.
The earth contains something like 4.7 Trillion tonnes of gold in the crust and mantle combined, so we will never run out of gold, but it’s worth so much because it costs a great deal of energy to gain access to one ounce.
With unlimited cheap/free energy we could in theory mine billions of tonnes of many things, like copper, but in reality long before then, with a low enough ore grade, we could lose more copper to entropy from the equipment used in the process than is gained from the extreme low grade. There are indeed limits that no-one wants to think about!!
A whole lot more mining to just retain what we have is a sure way to do irreversible harm to the remaining ecosystem, on which we depend for our survival.
Plus there is the entirely overlooked aspect of mining always requiring fossil fuel products from coke to plastics to chemicals used in the floatation processes and smelting (90% of base metal mining), with zero alternatives.
Nick you never, ever consider a system approach, which is why it all sounds so easy from an economics point of view.
We are using lower and lower quality forms of energy to gain access to lower and lower ore grades of metals and minerals.
By this I mean the energy cost of energy is rising, while the ore grades are lowering, while the damage to the environment accelerates. What could go possibly go wrong?
Apart from everything…..
“Let’s get real, who needs bit coin ? I think your making Nick’s point.”
I guess Nick’s point is that everyone should enter a most frugal existence. Jimmy Carter was leaning that way.
I see you didn’t answer the question. You took the strawman approach for Nick assuming. Then wrapped him in a little Jimmy Carter negativism.
I don’t think being an EV advocate maintaining today’s transportation is some kind of frual approach.
Come on now. Everyone should get around by an eBike , if not a lightweight road bike. Fabian Cancellara likely won races with a battery hidden in the frame.
Nothing to see here….
https://phys.org/news/2024-11-doomsday-antarctic-glacier-faster-fueling.html
The AI gamble is making bankers nervous
https://www.techspot.com/news/105406-tech-companies-200-billion-ai-gamble-raises-concerns.html
Someone basically saw fracking and said “Let’s do that, but for computer stuff and call it a day.”
Money goes in, ? comes out.
“Birds are telling us—in their behavior, in their dwindling numbers, in their silence—that we must take action now, and that we must take action where birds need us most, from the Arctic to Chile and everywhere in between.
It’s time to rise to the occasion.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14038085/Scientists-proof-afterlife-millions-patients-life-death.html
Ron may be interested in this based on his book
“Kamala Harris will be the first president in history with experience in all three branches of government—judicial, legislative, and executive.”
But Trump was a game show host.
A new Open Thread Non-Petroleum has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-november-5-2024/
A new updated US August Oil Production thread has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-august-oil-production-another-record-high/