STEVE KEEN and EVAN JONES in conversation with FRANK STILWELL
In this event to celebrate the publication of Political Economy Now!–the history of the Political Economy struggle at Sydney University–Evan Jones, Frank Stilwell and Steve Keen will discuss the struggles inside the university economics departments and their significance, not only for teaching, but for the world economy itself.
Political Economy Now! by Gavan Butler, Evan Jones and Frank Stilwell is the story of one of the most substantial and enduring conflicts in the history of Australian universities. Beginning in the late 1960s, it pitted those committed to the teaching of mainstream economics at the University of Sydney against the proponents of an alternative program in political economy. It explores issues such as
- Why all the fuss over the teaching of economics?
- Why were the disagreements so deep and protracted?
- What has been at stake?
- Why did dissident staff and students commit so much time and energy to establishing and developing alternative courses?
- Does it matter in the broader world? (Hint: naive neoclassical economic theories helped create the Global Financial Crisis)
Location: Gleebooks, 49 Glebe Pt. Rd, Glebe
Start Time: 18:30
Date: Tuesday 16th June 2009
Link out: Click here
Cost: $10 ($7 concession). Booking is essential.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
How is it possible to have continued exponential growth indefinitely. This question assumes that some part of that growth is quantity as well as quality.
Concad
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
It’s possible under a range of conditions (including that that growth doesn’t add to our entropic load on the planet), but economists are woefully ignorant of these issues because (a) their training doesn’t even include the basics needed to understand exponential growth and (b) they dismissed the attempt to bring growth and feedback issues into economics made by the Limits to Growth Report back in 1973.
One of the Limits to Growth scenarios did involve the possibility of continued exponential growth, but it was constrained so that our pollution load didn’t rise, etc. It meant (from memory) a maximum rate of growth of less than 1.5% p.a., far less than the 3% plus that modern economies aspire to.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Steve,
And this is the real issue – Limits to Growth. Despite all the green-talk we are on a path to exceed the Kioto target.
“With emissions trading delayed, Australia’s best hope of meeting the Kyoto target could be a recession.”
http://livenews.com.au/news/tragedy-australia-set-to-breach-kyoto/2009/6/2/208646
There is one common denominator though with GFC – the unsustainability of borrowing money forever and the unsustainability of using natural resources which can’t be replenished.
All the bailouts of American carmakers show very clearly that the lesson has not been learned yet.
I don’t want to start another discussion about the topic as it can be as toxic as the pollution itself. I just want to say that I am very saddened and pessimistic.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
In June 2008 Graham Turner from C.S.I.R.O published a paper titled “A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Reality”. (ISSN: 1834-5638) see http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
The Club of Rome’s “The Limits to Growth” report in 1972 modelled three scenarios.
1. The standard run or business as usual scenario
2. Comprehensive technology approach – solving all problems with technology
3. The Stabilised World scenario where technology and social policies were used to solve problems
In this paper he concludes that the Standard Run results most closely match what has happened from 1970 to 2000. The model’s standard run simulation predicts a collapse of the global system (not just economic system) by the mid 21st century.
Maybe a growth of 1.5% is too much. There is a recent report by the British sustainability commission titled “Sustainability Without Growth” that concludes we can have sustainability without growth.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Yes, Graham is actually a close research colleague; I spent a week with him and co-workers at the CSIRO recently, working on how to integrate my economic models with their climate and resource use models.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:25 am
How is it possible to have continued exponential growth indefinitely. This question assumes that some part of that growth is quantity as well as quality.
I dunno how, but human population numbers have been hyper-exponential for probably at least the last few hundred years, despite some really big wars, etc.
Some would say, “We can’t go on like this”. But that’s been said a number of times before and so far been wrong every time.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Tel
There may have been times in the past when some predictions have been wrong but the “Limits to Growth” has not been proved wrong yet. In fact as the above paper indicates it appears in one simulation to be right on the mark. Any exponential function produced long enough approaches infinity. Only neoclassical economists would ignore this in their continual growth theories of economics. No doubt you will agree that an exponential growth in population indefinitely is not possible and some time soon we must change this as well as economic theories.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Tel,
“But that’s been said a number of times before and so far been wrong every time.”
One time it will not be wrong. The same is about my death – I will die only once.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Erhh tel,
“Any exponential function produced long enough approaches infinity.”
So does any linear function if it involves a positive relational variable.
Some economic luddites I’ve encountered think this way because they don’t understand mathematics. If it is too much of a problem, turn your Y-Axis into a logarithmic scale.
“Only neoclassical economists would ignore this in their continual growth theories of economics.”
As opposed to linear models will also approach infinity?
“No doubt you will agree that an exponential growth in population indefinitely is not possible and some time soon we must change this”
‘We must change this’. Sounds like legislation. Does it involve curbing the population growth of the more successful socities whilst providing welfare for the least successful?
“as well as economic theories.”
One simple premise of capitalism is increased productivity. Greater output for the same amount of one or more inputs. One you’ve exhausted all possible productivity gains available in every single input can we start talking about this.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Rustypenny: I believe you are responding to concad’s points there.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
rustypenny,
I cannot agree with:
“One simple premise of capitalism is increased productivity. Greater output for the same amount of one or more inputs. One you’ve exhausted all possible productivity gains available in every single input can we start talking about this.”
This is unfortunately a myth not based on facts at
least regarding energy productivity.
http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=1574
I have chosen a graph from the official EU agency website so that I am not accused of peddling greenish rubbish.
True, there is some gain but in the end the increase of energy consumption still prevails and we cannot attribute all the growth in GDP to the productivity gain. The energy consumption has stabilised at the unsustainable level in the richest countries and it is growing in developing countries. The consumption of other resources is still growing.
The blind faith in progress is one of the most dangerous elements of neoliberalism and similar ideologies including communism. We can get into any kind of black hole but the god of progress will always save us.
Maybe that god doesn’t exist? Can we destroy our environment? “Yes we can”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2580733.stm
How did the free market-driven system behave when it was known that fishing was unsustainable? This information was not a price signal so it couldn’t be processed. The free-marked driven economy has exhausted that resource with the greatest possible efficiency. This is only what a free-market system can do with any of the resources. There is no other input than the price signal. If you think that the example is isolated there is more in this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)
So am I an “economic luddite”? As an engineer I could not be further away from this kind of thinking. We need to use scientific and technological progress to solve our problems. This is the only solution to our problems I would say. The same applies to “capitalism” – it is the most efficient system but the real costs of energy and commodities must be included – either at the supply side or at the demand side.
However if full costs (including the cost of the habitat for our children) are suddenly applied to the current greed-driven economy there can be only one outcome – a collapse of the society. Therefore we have to think about alternative solutions – but not by discarding good things which work (like market economy). Let’s leave this topic for a further discussion, I still have no clear answer for now how to do it however I have some hope.
Let me ask another question regarding progress: how many great inventions are in the pipeline to be commercialised? I am afraid quite a few. Thermonuclear energy looks as promising as it used to 40 years ago – it is still “a few years away”. Our process of generating energy is mostly based on an invention which is several hundred thousand years old – on burning organic matter.
How far away is artificial intelligence? Isn’t it still a few years away exactly as in the 1950-ties?
How far away is sending astronauts to Mars? I am afraid the US cannot even look after their GPS satellites. Soon they will be unable to fly human missions to the ISS. They have to pay the Russians to use Soyuz – could anyone imagine that in 1991?
Is this the progress in the context of the Free Economy I should believe in? Of course we can use our intellect and existing technologies to reduce our energy consumption and to build (more) sustainable energy industry. We can apply biotechnology to solve food shortages problems and improve quality of living by inventing new medicines and treatments.
We only need to want this outcome rather than to just “increase the GDP”.
If we don’t change our direction it will soon be to late to avoid the meltdown predicted and simulated in the “Limits to Growth” document, I’m afraid.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Moved to fish farming. The price of salmon is now extremely stable.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:45 am
I presume you mean fusion energy? Thermonuclear fission is 100% mainstream right now, just a question of safety and waste disposal remains.
If I roll some dice, and keep rolling snake eyes again and again, what would you expect the next roll to be? Probably same as the other rolls.
If a single technology has been prominent in human progress for thousands of years, its probably a reasonably good guess that it works.
I doubt that chess championships are ever going to be quite the same. Would anyone in the 50’s have considered fly-by-wire aircraft driven mostly by software? What about automated layout of circuit designs? Dynamic network routing? Japan’s road traffic management system? Google’s keyword indexing?
It’s a healthy sign when the lead changes hands, keeps the players keen. The EU couldn’t even land a Beagle on Mars
I suspect the yanks are deliberately crashing their GPS satellites out of curiosity, so they can find out how long it takes the EU to get their system together.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Tel,
You haven’t responded to the main claim I laid that the increase of energy productivity in the unmoderated free market environment has been not good enough to reduce the total energy demand which is unsustainable.
If you think that moving over to salmon fishing and leaving the ecosystem damaged for many years is a good response I can only say that you have effectively agreed with my point. We can expect the same response again when our main habitat is severely damaged. Our population will crash and technological process will move on. Our grandchildren will be eating green goo from algae or something like that. (And this is exactly the claim laid by the report you don’t like).
I am not saying that we have no technical capabilities – quite the opposite. I am saying that pure free market doesn’t employ our capabilities to solve our problems.
My claim is that our free-market driven progress is too slow to make an assumption that things will be sorted out on their own.
Yes nuclear fission is an option probably not exercised enough but resources of uranium and thorium are limited. By he way because I am strongly pro-nuclear I have never subscribed to the green ideology.
I don’t want to start another front of discussion as it is out of scope of this forum.
Fusion is not economically profitable now or in the future with the technology we can imagine now and this was my point.
Burning fossil fuels works but for how long? This “for how long?” is my point not that it doesn’t work.
Regarding AI let’s not mix up the progress in computing with the lack of ability of computer systems to acquire and independently process information at a higher level of abstraction.
Has this test been passed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Connect an artificial agent to this discussion list – will it add any value?
Yes there is an alternative to GPS. It is called GLONASS. Is this what you are asking for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
June 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Ak… I said…
I cannot agree with:
“One simple premise of capitalism is increased productivity. Greater output for the same amount of one or more inputs. One you’ve exhausted all possible productivity gains available in __every single input__ can we start talking about this.”
Then you said…
“This is unfortunately a myth not based on facts at least regarding energy productivity. ”
** This is a complete strawman argument. You focus on one input, then denounce all possibility of productivity gains everywhere else. I know limits in energy, human capacity already exist, but they are not _ALL_ inputs available.
Then…
“True, there is some gain but in the end the increase of energy consumption still prevails and we cannot attribute all the growth in GDP to the productivity gain.”
** Erhh, this is why we have a GFC. A lot of it has been attributed to increases in money supply, I’m aware of that.
“The energy consumption has stabilised at the unsustainable level in the richest countries and it is growing in developing countries. The consumption of other resources is still growing.”
** Yep, until it stops growing that is. Cost of extraction will one day exceed the cost of recycling and/or renewable alternatives.
Then…
“How did the free market-driven system behave when it was known that fishing was unsustainable? This information was not a price signal so it couldn’t be processed. The free-marked driven economy has exhausted that resource with the greatest possible efficiency. This is only what a free-market system can do with any of the resources. There is no other input than the price signal”
** No there is an other signal besides prices, its the number of participants. You can’t catch fewer fish and keep the same price unless the profit motive is satisfying less suppliers. Suppliers dropped out, and at tel indicated, started up salmon farms instead.
Then…
“So am I an “economic luddite”? As an engineer I could not be further away from this kind of thinking.”
** If you’re someone aware of mathematics and calculus, then to say..
‘Any exponential function produced long enough approaches infinity.’
.. as if the exponential component is a malfunction, yes the only alternative is what.. linear.. as if that will never approach infinity does expose some mathematic naivity.
We can growth exponentially, logarithmic functions explain this.
Then..
“We need to use scientific and technological progress to solve our problems. This is the only solution to our problems I would say. The same applies to “capitalism” – it is the most efficient system but the real costs of energy and commodities must be included – either at the supply side or at the demand side. ”
** Erhh pure capitalism wants to price in these ‘real costs’. Self interest and political expedience, it direct contrast to pure capitalism denies these price signals.
“Let me ask another question regarding progress: how many great inventions are in the pipeline to be commercialised?”
** Another strawman argument. If I knew that they wouldn’t be inventions in the pipeline but in mainstream use. You could have asked this question in 1989 and completely overlooked the internet
“I am afraid quite a few. Thermonuclear energy looks as promising as it used to 40 years ago – it is still “a few years away”.
It is here now. It’s just the marginal cost is not as effective as the current models. If the current models are unsustainable then this price disparity will disappear.
“Our process of generating energy is mostly based on an invention which is several hundred thousand years old – on burning organic matter.”
** Yep……
“We can apply biotechnology to solve food shortages problems”
** We grow enough food in the world as it is. Logistics is more of a problem, and arguably ‘overpopulation’, especially in societies with less knowledge. Price signals via capitalist models will also increase food supply with incentive to fund further research.
“and improve quality of living by inventing new medicines and treatments. ”
** That doesn’t exist as it is? We have progressed greatly in medicines, to the point where in overcompensates for self-abuse and other areas of degradation and entropy, i.e alzeihmers.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Rustypenny,
You have merged my post with Concad’s “exponental functions” in the response but this is not relevant.
You have actually agreed with my point that the market system only responds to past signals. Once there is no cod available let’s start farming salmon.
Once there is no oil the system will respond by switching to natural gas then to coal and when the coal is exhausted or climate wrecked only then to start reducing consumption.
This is exactly what is simulated in “Limits to growth”. With the conclusion where the humanity will be in 2100.
I will respond to other claims later.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Rustypenny,
You stated that:
“This is a complete strawman argument. You focus on one input, then denounce all possibility of productivity gains everywhere else. I know limits in energy, human capacity already exist, but they are not _ALL_ inputs available.”
These productivity gains you are taking about are irrelevant because it will be too late. You believe that the system will self-adjust in the future to diminishing amount of materials and energy available and keep increasing the GDP output because there are some other factors which are not constrained especially technological progress. I may share the view that the system will adjust to some extent and with certain delay but I am sceptical whether this adjustment will be adequate.
I predict more competition for diminishing resources – not one George W. Bush invading Iraq searching for weapons of mass oil but a hundred of them trying to seize all the available assets at the same time.
This grim prediction is exactly what the Limit to Growth report is about.
Let’s analyse the response of free market economy to similar events in the past.
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp362.pdf
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/Papers/2004/High_Oil_Prices.pdf
If the system didn’t respond adequately in the past – the GDP didn’t recover why should I believe that it will happen in the future if we don’t intervene in advance?
My point is that instead of waiting until it is too late we should artificially modify the rules of the game by constraining energy availability before the real shortages takes place. This will leave more time (decades rather than years) for new technologies to evolve and will save resources for the future. You can burn oil in a heater or make medicines from it. The market doesn’t currently distinguish as the price is the same.
We should restrict destruction of the environment before the environment is irreversibly damaged. Why should I believe that the system will self regulate itself due to the mythical “progress” and avoid destruction of our habitat if I can see for example the destruction of rainforests going on now in so many countries? Only when unpopular administrative actions were undertaken by governments pushed by conservationists natural parks were created and other measures implemented. Free market doesn’t provide enough pressure against corporations and lobby groups even if we talk about gains from eco-tourism.
I strongly believe that taxation can be a very useful tool in promoting certain technologies and discouraging others less energy-efficient.
I am also not obsessed too much with the consumption level. People are not significantly less happy in countries where GDP is 5 times lower than in the US.
However if our GDP falls 10% and the consumption level of 80% of society is unchanged at the expense of 20% who are unemployed then this is a real problem.
This is exactly what is wrong in the current neoliberal system and this is why I really care about the GFC. The system only works when GDP is growing – when it stops growing the society may collapse.
June 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Steve,
An interesting question arises from the discussion about “faith in god of progress”:
To what extent the spike in oil prices in 2008 contributed to prickling the real estate / credit bubble in the US?
Obviously the “subprime” crisis had its own dynamics.
However if the signal (GDP reduction caused by the price spike) produced according to the data from the reports I mentioned is applied to the dynamic model of economy could the disturbance caused by the oil shock have pushed the system from the “bubble growth” trajectory to the “deflation-recession” one? (The bubble itself was caused by speculation so one can argue that it was endogenous to the system anyway).
June 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Rustypenny
You attributed my post to “tel” but I understand your haste.
Your comment about a linear function also approaching infinity is accepted. However to say that the two functions are similar misses the point.
I come from an engineering background and so tend to look to the real world to check my theories and calculations. Also I do understand a reasonable amount of mathematics. To say that I should turn the Y axis into a logarithmic scale indicates you are thinking of a graph on a computer screen and not the real world.
Then you throw in a red herring by suggesting that I am advocating legislation to limit population and proceed to argue various scenarios that you, (not me) have thrown in. Population numbers will be controlled by nature or by us. We have that choice.
Perhaps you should consider the observation that when some people use pejorative terms like economic luddites, they do so because their arguments lack substance and so substitute abuse in the hope of strengthening their argument.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“Population numbers will be controlled by nature or by us. We have that choice.”
This is the core issue. The same applies to energy or other resources consumption.
We are either brainless agents maximising our utility function, herded by marketing from big corporations or conscious human beings.
I have to commute 40km. Sadly riding a pushbike is too dangerous and there is no public transport available. I can either drive a 4WD car (14l/100km), a normal car (9l/100km) or a motorbike (<4l/100km).
When hybrid motorbikes arrive I promise to buy one. (2l/100km)
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/09/honda-developin/
Am I a luddite?