RE: RE: Kuznets cycles and energy-system renewal
Mathew Forstater wrote: > > > I have a very short encyclopedia entry on the Kuznets U hypothesis, but > it is part of slightly a longer essay, if anyone is interested. I'd very much like to see it. >I argue > that Kuznets himself warned against applying what were some "hunches" > about the early development of presently industrialized countries to > currently 'developing' economies. Neverthless, in the 70s people like > Paukert and Ahluwalia did just that, and even used cross-sectional data > to test what was a theory about secular development. So they pieced > together countries at different levels of GNP across a U shaped curve, > implying that they were going to move along it. The problem here is that > the conclusion that may be drawn is that countries with lousy income > distribution should not worry, just keep on pursuing growth and they > will become more equal. More recent evidence tells us this is not a > very likely prospect, plus there is the problem with the environmental > impact, since they are just talking about good old GNP/GDP grwoth, with > all the problems with that. > > Cutler Cleveland has been doing interesting work for a long time on > biophysical limits. At one time he supported the energy theory of value, > which has some problems I think, although people like Herman Daly > rejected it on the grounds that it was too similar to a labor theory of > value, but I don't buy their non-critique of that. You mean Odum's eMergy stuff? It doesn't really work, but it's useful in lots of ways anyway, don't you think? > Be that as it may, > the Daly-Costanza ecological economics stuff has its good points, but it > also has some weaknesses that can be improved by blending it with > political economy, social ecology, feminist economics, etc. Absolutely true. > I have some > papers where I derive what I call some biophysical conditions for a > sustainable economy--similar to some of what you can find in the > ecological economics and sustainability lit under the names of things > like 'rules for sustainability' etc. Is it on the Net, or can you send stuff to me offlist, Mat? I'd really be obliged. > If we take this stuff seriously, > it would entail a very major transformation of the way we live, the > technological structure of production (transformation from an > exhaustible resource-based to a renewable resource-based technological > structure of production, etc.), whole sectors, industries, firms, > occupations, skills, etc, would become obsolete, news ones required. > There would have to a major sort of transition period, rethinking the > whole layout in terms of the way we live and so on. There would > definitely have to be either a guaranteed income and or guaranteed jobs > for all (and there will be plenty to do) to make sure that the > disruptions would not result in more massive unemployment, poverty, etc. > I don't think it is impossible, but it would require a fantastic change > in consciousness etc. Adolph Lowe, who taught at the New School for > many years and who was thinking about these issues from the sixties on, > thought that it was possible that it would take a "mini-catastrophe" or > even a few "mini-catastrophes" to get the message through to people on a > mass scale that we absolutely must change in fundamental ways. He hoped > that it would take a major catastrophe, and he hoped that maybe it > wouldn't take any catastrophes at all, but the way things have > developed, with the inequalities and the technological developments, > some people are able to insulate themselves from the effects of > environmental and other problems, so we might be looking more to > something like the old movie "Metropolis" than bioregionalist communism > or communist bioregionalism. I can't see how will get there absent > significant economic and social planning, with all the challenges that > brings. We are not on the path to evolve in that direction presently, > it doesn't seem, not automatically. Mat This is all very helpful and thank you so much. Mark Jones
Re: RE: Kuznets cycles and energy-system renewal
At 07:10 PM 06/25/2001 -0500, you wrote: >. I argue >that Kuznets himself warned against applying what were some "hunches" >about the early development of presently industrialized countries to >currently 'developing' economies. without those warnings, the "Kuznets hypothesis" (that rising inequality is eventually solved by economic growth) is nothing but the trickle-down theory. I've wondered about the view that workers "have to make a sacrifice" to promote or save capitalism, whether it's trying to "take off" and become developed or it's in crisis. But in the orthodox theory, isn't interest the reward for saving, i.e., for abstinence? so shouldn't the working class be paid interest for making sacrifices? even better, shouldn't it be given equity? Some might argue that these sacrifices sometimes only involve relative deprivation, not absolute deprivation. But both the take-off and economic crises create new needs, which undermine the utility-value of "real" wages. So what looks like merely relative sacrifice could be absolute. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Kuznets cycles and energy-system renewal
I have a very short encyclopedia entry on the Kuznets U hypothesis, but it is part of slightly a longer essay, if anyone is interested. I argue that Kuznets himself warned against applying what were some "hunches" about the early development of presently industrialized countries to currently 'developing' economies. Neverthless, in the 70s people like Paukert and Ahluwalia did just that, and even used cross-sectional data to test what was a theory about secular development. So they pieced together countries at different levels of GNP across a U shaped curve, implying that they were going to move along it. The problem here is that the conclusion that may be drawn is that countries with lousy income distribution should not worry, just keep on pursuing growth and they will become more equal. More recent evidence tells us this is not a very likely prospect, plus there is the problem with the environmental impact, since they are just talking about good old GNP/GDP grwoth, with all the problems with that. Cutler Cleveland has been doing interesting work for a long time on biophysical limits. At one time he supported the energy theory of value, which has some problems I think, although people like Herman Daly rejected it on the grounds that it was too similar to a labor theory of value, but I don't buy their non-critique of that. Be that as it may, the Daly-Costanza ecological economics stuff has its good points, but it also has some weaknesses that can be improved by blending it with political economy, social ecology, feminist economics, etc. I have some papers where I derive what I call some biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy--similar to some of what you can find in the ecological economics and sustainability lit under the names of things like 'rules for sustainability' etc. If we take this stuff seriously, it would entail a very major transformation of the way we live, the technological structure of production (transformation from an exhaustible resource-based to a renewable resource-based technological structure of production, etc.), whole sectors, industries, firms, occupations, skills, etc, would become obsolete, news ones required. There would have to a major sort of transition period, rethinking the whole layout in terms of the way we live and so on. There would definitely have to be either a guaranteed income and or guaranteed jobs for all (and there will be plenty to do) to make sure that the disruptions would not result in more massive unemployment, poverty, etc. I don't think it is impossible, but it would require a fantastic change in consciousness etc. Adolph Lowe, who taught at the New School for many years and who was thinking about these issues from the sixties on, thought that it was possible that it would take a "mini-catastrophe" or even a few "mini-catastrophes" to get the message through to people on a mass scale that we absolutely must change in fundamental ways. He hoped that it would take a major catastrophe, and he hoped that maybe it wouldn't take any catastrophes at all, but the way things have developed, with the inequalities and the technological developments, some people are able to insulate themselves from the effects of environmental and other problems, so we might be looking more to something like the old movie "Metropolis" than bioregionalist communism or communist bioregionalism. I can't see how will get there absent significant economic and social planning, with all the challenges that brings. We are not on the path to evolve in that direction presently, it doesn't seem, not automatically. Mat
