Exponential growth in a finite world cannot go on forever therefore we all need to live in a Net Zero world within the next 10 years. = modern Globalist / neo-Malthusian / Leftist economic logic.
That an eminent professor of economics published that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to economics displays both the hubris and lack of real world understanding of many economists.
To be fair, the reason physical systems move always towards equilibrium or steady state which is the 2nd law does not count for economic modelling. There is no reasons markets must behave the same way - in fact they don‘t. Problem arises from economists nonetheless modelling under the delusion of some equilibrium of markets, using the physical way of thinking.
But "Markets" aren't an economic system so that's a Straw Man. They aren't even complex dynamical systems, but simple organised rule based systems. Each participant agrees up front to the market rules in order to partake, and those who break the rules are subject to punishment.
@@TheUAoB That is the wrongest description of markets I have seen so far. Thx for the laugh. First of all markets indeed *are* a complex and highly dynamic system, for they include feedback mechanisms. For expamle the labour market does not follow the simple rule of supply and demand, but produces its own demand by giving income to people. That is a simple to describe but hard to quantify feedback. The only thing you know is that you just cannot save an economy by lowering wages. Second, the markets are not independent from one another, making the entirek market system highly complex. The market for labour is not the same as the one for goods/services. The market for financial products is not the same as the system (market would be inaccurate here) for interest rates. Still both depends on one another highly. And then those two couples I described are coupled altogether in causes and effects that are many and, complex and change over time with high dynamics. And none of this shows the slightest sign of a need for equilibrium or any inner mechanism that always seeks equilibrium, whatever equlilibrium means here.
Thank you for your comment about Peter Zeihan! I think you were spot on. He has insight in some areas and a lot of over confident bullshit in many other areas as well.
@ Good for you! It took me longer, but once I realized his general stick which is to assemble a relatively randomcollection of facts, claim that they’re related without really showing how and then drawing sweeping conclusions from them and making wild prophecies, I didn’t need to listen again to know what he was going to say. I think the thing that irks me the most about him is that he loves to do videos in very scenic, beautiful spots in the mountains while he’s hiking or on the seashore, etc. I think the message of his videos is that he is so much smarter than his audience That he can wander around spouting broad generalizations and he’s obviously making a lot more money than anyone who listens to him and always will.
Have been an avid follower of Steve's for many years, and Mr Dec.Med. [sorry, don't know your name, and can't find it mentioned anywhere], you are one of the most exciting minds in current media. Thanks for the post, guys.
I've been a huge fan of Steve Keen since the Great Financial Crisis. The problem with Nordhaus and Lombord is they only consider the direct effects of temperature change, but do not take into account the costs due to second-order effects dues to shifting biomes, rising sea levels and increased rates of extreme weather events. All of these second order effects require investment in infrastructure and other investments in order to adapt to the changes, or if adaptation is not cost-effective, land that is presently economically productive will have to be abandoned, or may be much less productive. Maybe a few areas where productivity is severely limited by cold (Russia, Canada, Scandinavia & the northernmost part of the USA) will benefit, but only about 5% of the world's population live in cold climate areas. The cost of these second-order effects are far, far greater than the direct costs of a simple increase in temperatures.
“We have a finite environment - the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.“
@@gabrielrodriguez821 ???? "Yea, well, technological progress says overwise" No, it doesn't. Because our environment is "not infinite", as you correctly said. "this variable can change the definition of what is finite over time" No, it just makes a few things more plentiful than we thought. The important bit is the 'few' bit... Only a few things can be addressed... There's a few things which are rock-solid, non negotiable, and others that we just don't know about yet. If we address one deficiency, push it back, then we make progress, but then bump up against 2 more... Address these 2, push them back, make progress, then we bump into 4 more... We've done a LOT with the low hanging fruit, and have gotten to 8.1 billion of us... But now we have 8.1 billion of us dependant on us fixing the next deficiency, or more like 8, that will pop up. The price of raw materials famously is not driven by scarcity, but by demand. Our progress has been made possible due to 10s of thousands of years of relative stability of our environment... That all changed about 200 years ago, and is changing exponentially, accelerating... One thing this means is that things that were 'plentiful', even with 8.1 billion of us, suddenly aren't, as climate change is gradually taking some of it away. So in effect, our environment is not just finite, but it's actually shrinking, when we consider it in human habitability, human supportability terms. But anyhoo, what do we actually want to grow? We don't want pollution to grow... We don't want deforestation to grow... We don't want extinctions to grow... We don't want ocean dead-zones to grow... We don't want traffic on our drive to work to grow... What we do want to is our individual, family, community affluence to grow, our health to grow, our freedoms to grow, our happiness to grow... Therefore, we're left with one solid reality... Our population size. It has to reduce. And the ONLY nice way to reduce it, is by choosing to have fewer kids, by being able to choose to have fewer kids, by having the knowledge & understanding why, by having free and easy access to all the tools, means to have smaller families. If you think this might not be correct, then mathematics is gonna give you a hard time.
@@gabrielrodriguez821 When you multiply a rising curve by a declining curve, you get an inverted-U shaped curve. Now think about Economy = Resource Base X Applied Technology. Even if "technology" can go to infinity, the resource base is declining.
@@gabrielrodriguez821 ??? "Yea, well, technological progress says overwise." No, it doesn't. It just moves the problem slightly into the future. Good ol' Norman Borlaug, who gave us the Green Revolution, and has saved 1 billion lives from hunger, he made a point of telling us how not to blow our future during his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize.. He told us that yes, we do now have lots of food (thanks to technological progress), but unless we deal with our population growth, size, we'll just get back to the same place, with humans starving to death. Well, we ignored him. And we have the likes of Elmo threatening his followers into pumping out kids for him... The growth we do want to increase is that of happiness, wellbeing, health, prosperity, stability, etc. etc. And not just for us humans, but also for the environment, the poor little animals, too. The only way we can do this is by reducing the number of us. Reducing our population size. And the only nice way we can do that, is by choice. Being able to, having the rights to, the knowledge why, the means to choose to have smaller families. And wow, is supplying every human on the planet the full range of family planning cheap! Compared to all the other things we'd have to do to deal with the fallout of everything crumbling around us! It's pretty cool to realise that choosing to have smaller families addresses every single big issue we face today!!! AND it will result in our wages going up, our worker rights improving, our families getting richer, and our kids having a much, much better outlook.
24:20 Respect you two gents immensely, thanks and gratitude. Though on a minor point of pedantism (sp), A Smith's opening salvo " Labour is the source of wealth ...", if one were to transpose to our time line we could consider labour as work, thus being equal to energy over a span of time ie. W = E/t [Sorry, the physic teacher in me took over]. I realise Smith's focus was human labour, but it may indicate he was on the right track.
Appreciate Prof. Keens economic contributions but believe his concerns on climate change are overblown. What hapens 100 years plus from now is completely out of our control and we have no idea what the energy sources will be by then. The cost of enegy determines how that energy is used and the vitality of the economy. I also believe the financial sector has become a burden on the economy in the same way as excessive government. From a societal perspective prosperity Lombard is correct on many if not all points.
I don't think we should talk about the future 100 years from now with the assumption that the global technological industrial civilization still exists. It will likely collapse much earlier, probably when we run out of affordable oil in the coming decades.
@@Pasandeeros dark thoughts indeed. Personally I am very confident if we make the right decisions there is a bright future ahead. I am not worried about the democracies, they are all on the right track. I think the large developing countries, China, Indonesia, India, Brazil and even Nigeria are OK. Russia is a basket case and seems likely to deindustrialise. The US is a bit of a worry but is nearly always late to the party. The worry is it seems determined to revert economically and environmentally. However, provided the rest of the world gets its act together, in the big scheme of things, what happens in the US may not matter much.
If the current debt based fiat system isn't scrapped asap nothing matters. When that is fixed, all in nuclear or humanity is facing extinction living out the last days in caves again. That's the reality right now; dictating if there's going to be another 100 years at all
I'm with you on the immediate future of the world Steve, in our lifetimes. That's why I bought a slice of mountainous Tasmania with river frontage 25 years ago. Can not understand why the majority of humanity cannot see this. How can they be so short-sighted?
I'm only stating the obvious, for the audience, because I'm certain you have thought of this. Your Escape Plan 100% depends upon the societal resilience of Tasmania itself continuing in order to respect those property rights
Great stuff! Steve is a long term hero of mine, who introduced me to system dynamics. I discovered him in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when he was the only economist who made any sense to me. Would be great if you talked to his colleague physicist Tim Garrett who is one of my favourite big picture thinkers and a Jevon's paradox specialist.
imho, orthodox economics is probably way less cohesive than heterodox economists give it credit for. monetary policy as practiced by central banks doesn't even seem to make sense under a loanable funds model which is purported by some prominent academics. orthodox economists seem to be in denial about these incoherencies also and come across as gaslighting when defending their profession as a whole.
I read all of Zeihan and watched his videos in fascination, until I realized he told Americans, the petrochemical industry, and climate deniers that it will all just be great -- for them. Meanwhile, moving from metropolitan Texas to a retreat high in the Front Range.
Can I just put a shout out for those chairs. Labour and energy pulled together to create maximum comfort and beauty, for a 3 hour podcast. inside a building sheltered from climate! 😂
Have you heard of weathering? The idea is that you could grind up a single mountain dump it in a lake and take out all human contributed CO2 from the last century. I think there's so many ways for us to adapt, we tend to have our vision to narrow
The climate costs topic is certainly in my wheelhouse. The main argument presented against the DICE model is that it is "totally absurd" and "the roads will be gone". This is not great persuasion. Luckily other better arguments are also made! Before considering the better critiques it makes sense to compare DICE to PAGE. ChatGPT alleges that PAGE does not use a geographical temperature comparison for its warming costs and that it includes a much steeper and more dynamic consideration of tipping points, as well as more non temperature costs. Nevertheless DICE and PAGE are almost identical up to 4 degrees of warming, with a significant difference clear by 8 degrees. Since PAGE includes all the things DICE is alleged to completely lack, a better critique of DICE would need to explain this with more than rhetoric I find it reasonably persuasive for Keen to allege that Nordhaus has a bias to assuming the world will not end because he likes its current system. Unfortunately this turns into a clear cut case of projection. Why? Keen proposes that the only possible solution to warming is dictatorship. Except the already cost effective solution of reflective particles in the stratosphere is a much more likely and desirable answer to actual catastrophic warming. It seems safe to say that he believes the world will end because he thinks the system is fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced (rather than Eastern European defensive pessimism like Chris). Always do a gut check as to whether someone's claim about someone else might apply to them! Ok, lets go straight to the great argument made against IAM discounted warming cost models. Frontier economies have been growing at 2% for 300 years, but that's not actually a very long time. It is reasonable to consider what we should do if that breaks down and future generations experience rising warming costs without rising economic growth to adapt to it. In that case we should do everything we can to decarbonize. I don't know how to weight this possibility. Should it be a 25% possibility and therefore maybe justify cutting the discount rate in half? It's a really interesting question and a genuine and major objection to a cost model that uses a 3% discount as I believe Nordhaus does. There are two possibilities with this, and I think both of them don't go Keen's way One is that the economy stops growing endogenously. In this case I would expect that the resources to fully decarbonize will not exist. Remember that Keen believes that global dictatorship is necessary to stop warming. Because it's very very hard. Without economic growth I propose that it would be near impossible, and certainly require dictatorships. However, again, stratospheric reflective particles would be a better solution than that. This is the absolute critical error with every catastrophic warming claim. If it's a catastrophe you do stratospheric particles. If it's a potential tipping point that is an unacceptable risk you do stratospheric particles at your chosen tipping point temperature. You can do other things, but nothing much more extreme than that makes sense because that is available The second possibility for the end of economic growth is that extreme non-linear multi-factorial processes cause all the roads to be gone. Again, however, this is a case where you either produce a global alliance of climate policy dictatorships, or you do reflective particles in the stratosphere. I also believe that excellently designed regulatory processes for nuclear could allow it to compete directly with coal There are some other points I could make about DICE, but I expect no one has the interest to go into them, or let me know. Points would include the two ways that DICE includes other costs than the geographically normed warming cost, and the observation that calling it linear when it is quadratic may be technically right in some way but is obviously wrong when you look at the cost curve on a graph. I would also point out that Keen alleges that Neoclassical economics have doomed the world by making people think 3 or 4 degrees of warming is fine, yet nearly every nation on earth has signed on to a proposed 2 degree limit. This again goes back to the projection bit. Looks like he expects everything to go wrong because of Neoclassical economics, not the climate! That's not why we're already at 1.5 degrees, it's because signing pledges does nothing to make actual transition a real probability by 2050. I think that is fundamentally impossible but I would suggest in particular Lomborg's proposal of massively increasing funding into green innovation to the tune of $200-300 billion a year, based on work by others suggesting it's around 10x more effective in the long run than short time horizon direct CO2 cuts Cheers
I don't think you're calculating the geo-political implications of a country dumping sun reflective spray in the atmosphere. Imagine if a country that hates the country that implements this ends up with a negative outcome and forces you to stop by the barrel of a gun. Do you continue? If you stop and the climate rebounds violently and some insignificant islanders get wiped out, but at least you avoided a war, is that okay? Or should you take the, "I'm sorry the solar shade program destroyed your ability to create food ( it doesn't matter if it's your fault cause you will be blamed anyway) but this is for the betterment of mankind" route
Yes this is a great episode and dialogue and some of the stuff Steve Keen tells us about describes individuals who are beyond normal crimes and are committing Ecocide, full-on.
Nice conversation Mark. I am very pro nuclear and I think it is an essential part of our future. I appreciate the advocacy you do. Understanding money is not easy - especially since we have been told a certain story all our lives. It is hard to wrap the head around the fact that spending came first (thats where we get the money to pay the taxes). Bond issuance has a purpose, but its not because we need the money. Why would we borrow something we are free to create. I see lots of comments that don't think we have an issue with the climate and/or there is an easy technical solution just around the corner (just like fusion). We ate most of the fish in the sea and ate most of the animals on the planet and temperatures are up. About 10K years ago a 4 degree change meant we had an ice sheet that covered all of Canada and most of Europe. People can believe what they want, but I've seen enough credible evidence that there is something to worry about. We can choose to act or be forced to react. I have a preference, but I fear I am the minority. Party on!
WAIT THE Steve Keen who met Doomberg one year ago (here on TH-cam!) THE Steve Keen who proudly voiced malthusian view points in this encounter? Steve Keen ... My answer to those who dictate the lower standard of living to all others in the name of the climate "You first"
I have been wondering how Nordhaus and Lomborg reached their conclusions about the lack of economic effects of climate change and your discussion with Keen provided some insight. Increased droughts - grow crops elsewhere. Floods - seawalls, levees, move to higher ground or effects overstated. High temps - better air conditioning and genetically modified plants. Other species impacts - as long as humans can continue their lifestyle, they don't care about other species or zoos can show us the remaining examples and genetic banks could bring them back in the future. They think the economy is resilient and will easily adapt to climate change effects. Keen and others think that collapse could happen at any time and in multiple ways. I lean toward some form of the great simplification happening in next decade or two. I hope it doesn't, but stock market crashes, financial collapses, simultaneous droughts in the worst possible places for food production, wars, etc. could happen at any time and head us down that road. Thanks for the podcast.
I used to somewhat follow Steve Keen and pretty familiar with the way he thinks. The whole idea of an economic model in relation to climate change is based on a series of assumptions. Those two should be decoupled. I take none of it seriously. Climate alarm skeptics like myself see the whole coupling as a gigantic futile exercise. Two points to make: 1:nobody knows the trajectory of future temperature and the assumed coupling w Co2 is both wrong and unproven/ non scientific, and 2: any model of economics is also based on losely assumptions of reality ie both are a construct that can be steered one way or the other. Economists have the habit of treating the world as a series of equations. Keen's worldview is marxist based. Nordhaus's quite another. How Keen knows that we underestimate the effects of climate change should give pause to anyone taking him seriously. To me, his assertiveness simply irritates me. He clearly doesnt know anything about the actual climate science, the uncertainties the system contains and just directs, or i should say biases his ideas towards a goal he insists are certain. The discrepancy between the two are so glaringly obvious that i watch this video with some amusement. Interesting he is on Decouple. Has Nate Hagan and Simon Michaux been on? I like their coherency much more, even though i think they are at least 75% mistaken.
Steve kind of likes to dance at everybody's wedding. From cozying up to degrowthers to cheering for space x in its early days, throwing his support behind movements like ubi and positive money, while also coasting along the ride with MMT which could not be more opposed to these things.
I understood, the government can spend whatever it likes, cause it issues treasuries, which suffice the balance requirements in the books? Seems to be an incomplete theory.
Not correct. Most governments are constrained by the tax base and the amounts they can raise by bond sales. The US is somewhat less constrained than most because around the world US government bonds are readily traded and considered very safe. In effect much of the world showers money on the US because their own economies are crap😮.
@jimgraham6722 Well, you can try what the Germans did before the election of Hitler. Or ,Zimbabwe... print more and more money, which seems like what mmt says.
Why do we always assume that climate change arrives like a meteor? We maintain infrastructure as the climate changes, we've always and will continue to do this. This alarmism is pathetic
Some disasters are slow, others are fast. Floods, uninhabitable temperatures, hell flames, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, Godzilla. Pick your poison.
In some ways you're not wrong, it will just be experienced as increased costs in many ways. There's a rule in finance, that people experience a loss twice as painfully as they perceive a foregone gain The regular increased costs of maintenance will mostly be seen as a foregone gain. And then the increased disasters will be perceived as a loss. So when we see extrapolations like climate change hurting the economy by -12 percent, a reasonable fraction of that is because crops fail or because homes need to be rebuilt, or people have to move
1:24:35 ouch. We just went through a similar money printing thing with Covid. What did we get, inflation, a decrease in the standard of living for the average citizen.
The warmest places on the planet are at the equator... There ain't a whole lot of deserts there. Turns out deserts come from a lack of humidity not from heat
So climate science is not based on models? CO2 isn't a sole lever of temperature, like self-interest is a lever of action in economics? And temperature growth isn't a sole measure of climactic well-being, like GDP is a measure of economic success?
According to Wikipedia H2O has the largest greenhouse effect with 60% followed by CO2 with 26% followed by troposheric ozone with 8% followed by N2O plus CH4 with 6%. Water vapour would not increase in the atmosphere without another forcing factor such as a change in one of the other greenhouse gases This is due to equilibrium. There is a natural equilibrium between water in the surface of seas, oceans, lakes and the atmosphere. If you have another factor increasing temperature you can shift the hydrosphere equilibrium a bit to being able to hold more moisture due to the increase in temperature. I have a pH.D in Chemistry so this is simple stuff me. The same would apply to anyone with advanced Physics, Chemical Engineering etc. Changes in the Earth's axis tilt wrt the orbit around the sun is a forcing factor that causes ice ages and warm ages as well. This acts on a scale of millennia. Changes in the orbit are also a factor. Google Milankovitch cycles if you want to know more about this. Another factor that could cause major warming or cooling are massive asteroid or cometary impacts. I did my pHD on this topic. Some folks will benefit form climate waming some will be disadvantaged. If you live in Canada, or Russia, or Sweden you make benefit ... as long as you don't have climate refugees!
@@sstachura You would be one of the very few non-climatologists knowing how the greenhouse effect really works by knowing its qunatitative mechanism rather than just its qualitative description. That is just emphasized by the fact you then would know by what calculation one comes to the values you are sceptical on. On the other hand its not about the greenhouse effect as such, but how it increases by adding CO2, what makes water vapor a positive feedback due to the law of Clausius-Clayperon, which you as chemist do know well.
@@sstachura You can conduct experiments. The 60% was for water vapor contribution to greenhouse effect. If water vapor had no greenhouse effect we would have snowball earth and complex life might not have evolved. One can conduct experiments. For example, have a chamber with typical air constituents at a given latitude and altitude and a source of light mimicking the solar spectrum at that altitude and latitude and measure the temperature changes with change of atmosphere due to altitude and many other inputs. One can have a vast amount of experimental data mimicking conditions at a vast variety of atmos. conditions. Ultimately you put that into a model. Yes a model. Wiki sites science journal articles.
Just one problem.... The data that shows warming is flawed. It does not take into account stations that have become surrounded by cities and estimates areas that dont have stations based on the models of the warming. If you correct for these errors the warming completely disappears. Instead of warming causing issues its actually solar energy influx to the earth's magnetosphere that is driving the storms, earthquakes, and climate patterns.
The city heat island effect is well known. But it will also aggravate any global warming, as far as city folk are concerned! Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The climate is complex, and it's sometimes hard to find where the heat went. But it's not a hoax. glaciers are receding and the ocean is warming, and it's not because they are too close to cities
Well that was great though I need to understand more about governments creating money and balancing this off against reserves - what are these reserves? Do they exist in economies where public debt exceeds GDP significantly. We need to hear more about how France financed their 58 reactor programme. What did Ontario do with its CANDU programme? Great stuff but I hope we can get a more targeted Round 2
The US Treasury still has about 8,000 tons of gold bullion. Some film flam merchants want to swap it out for bitcoin. My advice would be stick to gold.
Historically, government's will use up a currency, building and developing a currency until all wealth is extracted from a population and faith is lost in the currency (it takes about 50 years at 2% annual growth for mathematical and human lifespan reasons - nobody notices a 2% increase on a 5c candy bar) and like in the film _The Matrix,_ the system gets reset and the cycle starts again. This is described in the Bible as the jubilee. All debts are forgiven and all money is returned to the king.
Yes, but: what if the climate alarmists are wrong? What if Lomborg et al are wrong? The whole issue is the uncertainty in regards to what the climate will be. You cannot equate your way out of this. If you really, and i mean REALLY dig into the climate system you cannot come to the conclusion it is going this way or that. The main problem is that we cannot separate the signals and know the exact causal relationship. Not even proximal. So all we get is models, often linear, and projections. Most of it is based on the assumed effect of Co2. I say assumed because there is overwhelming evidence that it cannot do what it is assumed to do, not even from a physics point of view. Then there is the assumption that warmer temperatures are bad. That they will lead to more extreme weather which is false. And to finish off: natural cycles will trump anything humans can possibly do to the climate. We should adapt and correct landuse, clean air and waters, protect endangered species. Climate alarmism will likely be gone by 2030. Certainly by 2035. The road Keen proposes will lead to disaster and is purely driven by an asserted certainty. Being a marxist this does not come as a surprise..
1:14:54 Backing up your view of the absurdity of those economists, drop the temperature by 10 deg C [global average] and we enter an ice-age, raise the temp. by 10 deg C [global average] and we enter a scorched-scape hell-on-Earth. Good luck living for every organism on the planet for the second scenario, barring at Antarctica, Greenland or very high-altitude fastnesses [and likely also underground]. Competition for standing space might become heated (boom-boom).
Look I agree with you on tipping points and the unravelling of society. But @stevekeen what are your thoughts on permaculture and its role in building resilience in unpredictable systems. My personal experience has shown me that biodiverse dynamic food systems can be incredibly resilient and provide nutrition and productivity in the most hyperarid of climates. Look at the work of greening the desert. Time to be a little more positive
Consider bringing on an economist from the Austrian school of thought, if you haven’t already. Someone like Saifedean Ammous, Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Mark Thornton, Thomas DiLorenzo, Patrick Newman etc. Thanks
I can't believe that after all his work on modelling economics with double-entry ledgers that Keen has fallen hook, line and sinker into this MMT nonsense. It's as misguided a take on economics as Marx's labor theory of value. He's fallen in love with his analysis and fails to see what money actually is, nor where the model falls over
Interesting that Keen finishes with Mad Max. I watched this the other day and it kind of helps explain the original movie without resorting to the climate catastrophe causation: th-cam.com/video/FnD50llAkP4/w-d-xo.html
I find that most criticism of mmt is including false presumptions of what they mean. But I will criticize some of the education! When people look at mmt at the 101 level, the Educators tend to suggest that taxation is what retains the value for the currency. Not really true in most of our cases, where it is the issued household and corporate debt that backs the currency
We know a lot about climate based on ice cores from Greenland and analyzing the little bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them. The oldest ice cores in Greenland only go back about 150,000 years. That's because most of the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 150,000 years ago. It had melted. And every species of animal that was on the earth then including human beings is still in the earth now. We all survived the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. What's that tell you.?
It tells me you can choose to admit being incompetent or a liar. Greenland was not ice free 150000 years ago and of course many species went extinct since then, as we know for sure from fossils.
We are funding civilisation now through taxation. Nordic countries are doing ok. It comes down to people playing the game fairly, and that's a cultural rather than a financial theory issue.
Yeah, I enjoyed the part where government spending creates money because it's not a loan, it's a form of loan called a bond. And he says if a bond is a loan as the dummy neo-liberals think then the world will go entirely off the rails with deficit spending from his plan. Wonderful, tremendously convincing performance that he is not a reasonable source of information!
He's supposedly a "Marxist thinker" but has criticised Marx in his career as an economist? He comes off as more of a neo-con sceptic and a bit of a eco/accelerationist nutter to be honest. With differing views in the centre left and right wings of politics, but nothing "Marxist".
I live in North Carolina which interesting allows you to watch global warming. Is you drive out towards the coast in the last 50 miles everything is sand. It's called the coastal plain. It was all underwater thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago And then the water receipted. And this is a cycle that's been repeated over and over again. And all the species on earth survived. What's that tell you
Definitely the best example WYSIWYG recognition, and the explanation for why pseudo random magical-functional judgement requires continuous re-evolution recognition relative-timing reiteration. Ie the practical equivalent of temporal thermodynamical superposition focus on 0-1-2-3ness 3D-T line-of-sight holography-quantization nucleation. It's always NOW everywhere-when logical superposition identification of probabilistic correlations shaping WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance Completeness, (it's the Absolute Zero-infinity Aether of reference-framing stupid, economics by any other name.., if you will)
I think he straw-manned Nordhaus and can’t believe anyone still believes in the Limits to Growth Amstrad computer models. His Stalinist/Mad Max depopulation scenario is a good example of catastrophist anti-humanism at its worst. 😮
7:52 it wasn’t always slave labour, it was hard working men with a shared vision working to better the human race. Everything built by slaves is not accurate.
For what ruined the climate change narrative was finding out the sahara desert in africa the size of a USA was green 10k years ago nature is that powerful😮
Trees have always fallen down, since there were trees. Therefore there can be no deforestation. People have always died, therefore there can be no murder. Dude, those are examples of how bad your thinking is.
@@wheel-man5319rubbish. There has been some success in limiting the further desertification around the Sahara, but no significant desert area has been reclaimed and is unlikely to be so without a return to the climatic and geographic conditions of that time. These included the last ice age with ice sheets covering northern Europe and adjacent mountain ranges and the absence of the Mediterranean Sea. In short the Earth's climate would have to cool a great deal to re-green the mid latitude deserts.
@TheDanEdwards murder isn't just people dying and trees falling down isn't just deforestation What are talking about bro All I'm saying is the climate change narrative as it's being told is fake
@@wheel-man5319 That is not true. The Sahara Desert is expanding. Even if it were true that the Sahara Desert was "greening" it would be really bad for us. Vegetation is much darker than sand (lower albedo), so "greening" of the Sahara would accelerate climate warming and hasten our doom.
Steve Keen on Decouple. Take my upvote.
I wish I could vote more than once to promote this.
Perfect union. 👍🌅
It's time to debunk MMT. It doesn't matter who prints money, without the underlying energy resources, the system collapses.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
- Kenneth Boulding
Exponential growth in a finite world cannot go on forever therefore we all need to live in a Net Zero world within the next 10 years.
= modern Globalist / neo-Malthusian / Leftist economic logic.
That an eminent professor of economics published that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to economics displays both the hubris and lack of real world understanding of many economists.
To be fair, the reason physical systems move always towards equilibrium or steady state which is the 2nd law does not count for economic modelling. There is no reasons markets must behave the same way - in fact they don‘t. Problem arises from economists nonetheless modelling under the delusion of some equilibrium of markets, using the physical way of thinking.
But "Markets" aren't an economic system so that's a Straw Man. They aren't even complex dynamical systems, but simple organised rule based systems. Each participant agrees up front to the market rules in order to partake, and those who break the rules are subject to punishment.
@@TheUAoB That is the wrongest description of markets I have seen so far. Thx for the laugh.
First of all markets indeed *are* a complex and highly dynamic system, for they include feedback mechanisms. For expamle the labour market does not follow the simple rule of supply and demand, but produces its own demand by giving income to people. That is a simple to describe but hard to quantify feedback. The only thing you know is that you just cannot save an economy by lowering wages.
Second, the markets are not independent from one another, making the entirek market system highly complex. The market for labour is not the same as the one for goods/services. The market for financial products is not the same as the system (market would be inaccurate here) for interest rates. Still both depends on one another highly. And then those two couples I described are coupled altogether in causes and effects that are many and, complex and change over time with high dynamics.
And none of this shows the slightest sign of a need for equilibrium or any inner mechanism that always seeks equilibrium, whatever equlilibrium means here.
Thank you for your comment about Peter Zeihan! I think you were spot on. He has insight in some areas and a lot of over confident bullshit in many other areas as well.
I've only listened to Zeihan twice and that was exactly my take as well!
@
Good for you! It took me longer, but once I realized his general stick which is to assemble a relatively randomcollection of facts, claim that they’re related without really showing how and then drawing sweeping conclusions from them and making wild prophecies, I didn’t need to listen again to know what he was going to say. I think the thing that irks me the most about him is that he loves to do videos in very scenic, beautiful spots in the mountains while he’s hiking or on the seashore, etc. I think the message of his videos is that he is so much smarter than his audience That he can wander around spouting broad generalizations and he’s obviously making a lot more money than anyone who listens to him and always will.
I think Keen is just about as assertive as Zeihan...and equally mistaken.
He’s been very wrong about Bitcoin.
The mixture of insights+BS = BS!! We slip into false balance otherwise.
Have been an avid follower of Steve's for many years, and Mr Dec.Med. [sorry, don't know your name, and can't find it mentioned anywhere], you are one of the most exciting minds in current media. Thanks for the post, guys.
Intriguing exchange. A bit more alarming on the climate side than most of your guests.
You think? 😄
Its harder to work when its 40 ,crops will die
Africa has tens of millions of people in "acute food insecurity" (starving) already from abrupt global warming.
Syrian civil war was caused by climate change too!
they were also starving a century ago so thanks but you can stop playing.
@@pietersteenkamp5241 They did have more than enough water to sustain themselves. But nowadays droughts are becoming frequent.
Well, follow the graph trajectory for people dying of starvation and diseases in the last 100 years. It is down, down, even for Africa..
I've been a huge fan of Steve Keen since the Great Financial Crisis.
The problem with Nordhaus and Lombord is they only consider the direct effects of temperature change, but do not take into account the costs due to second-order effects dues to shifting biomes, rising sea levels and increased rates of extreme weather events.
All of these second order effects require investment in infrastructure and other investments in order to adapt to the changes, or if adaptation is not cost-effective, land that is presently economically productive will have to be abandoned, or may be much less productive. Maybe a few areas where productivity is severely limited by cold (Russia, Canada, Scandinavia & the northernmost part of the USA) will benefit, but only about 5% of the world's population live in cold climate areas.
The cost of these second-order effects are far, far greater than the direct costs of a simple increase in temperatures.
“We have a finite environment - the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.“
Yea, well, technological progress says overwise. While not infinite, this variable can change the definition of what is finite over time.
@@gabrielrodriguez821 ????
"Yea, well, technological progress says overwise"
No, it doesn't.
Because our environment is "not infinite", as you correctly said.
"this variable can change the definition of what is finite over time"
No, it just makes a few things more plentiful than we thought. The important bit is the 'few' bit... Only a few things can be addressed... There's a few things which are rock-solid, non negotiable, and others that we just don't know about yet.
If we address one deficiency, push it back, then we make progress, but then bump up against 2 more... Address these 2, push them back, make progress, then we bump into 4 more... We've done a LOT with the low hanging fruit, and have gotten to 8.1 billion of us... But now we have 8.1 billion of us dependant on us fixing the next deficiency, or more like 8, that will pop up.
The price of raw materials famously is not driven by scarcity, but by demand.
Our progress has been made possible due to 10s of thousands of years of relative stability of our environment... That all changed about 200 years ago, and is changing exponentially, accelerating... One thing this means is that things that were 'plentiful', even with 8.1 billion of us, suddenly aren't, as climate change is gradually taking some of it away.
So in effect, our environment is not just finite, but it's actually shrinking, when we consider it in human habitability, human supportability terms.
But anyhoo, what do we actually want to grow?
We don't want pollution to grow...
We don't want deforestation to grow...
We don't want extinctions to grow...
We don't want ocean dead-zones to grow...
We don't want traffic on our drive to work to grow...
What we do want to is our individual, family, community affluence to grow, our health to grow, our freedoms to grow, our happiness to grow...
Therefore, we're left with one solid reality... Our population size. It has to reduce.
And the ONLY nice way to reduce it, is by choosing to have fewer kids, by being able to choose to have fewer kids, by having the knowledge & understanding why, by having free and easy access to all the tools, means to have smaller families.
If you think this might not be correct, then mathematics is gonna give you a hard time.
@@gabrielrodriguez821 When you multiply a rising curve by a declining curve, you get an inverted-U shaped curve. Now think about Economy = Resource Base X Applied Technology. Even if "technology" can go to infinity, the resource base is declining.
@@gabrielrodriguez821 ???
"Yea, well, technological progress says overwise." No, it doesn't. It just moves the problem slightly into the future.
Good ol' Norman Borlaug, who gave us the Green Revolution, and has saved 1 billion lives from hunger, he made a point of telling us how not to blow our future during his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize.. He told us that yes, we do now have lots of food (thanks to technological progress), but unless we deal with our population growth, size, we'll just get back to the same place, with humans starving to death. Well, we ignored him. And we have the likes of Elmo threatening his followers into pumping out kids for him...
The growth we do want to increase is that of happiness, wellbeing, health, prosperity, stability, etc. etc. And not just for us humans, but also for the environment, the poor little animals, too.
The only way we can do this is by reducing the number of us. Reducing our population size.
And the only nice way we can do that, is by choice. Being able to, having the rights to, the knowledge why, the means to choose to have smaller families.
And wow, is supplying every human on the planet the full range of family planning cheap! Compared to all the other things we'd have to do to deal with the fallout of everything crumbling around us!
It's pretty cool to realise that choosing to have smaller families addresses every single big issue we face today!!!
AND it will result in our wages going up, our worker rights improving, our families getting richer, and our kids having a much, much better outlook.
24:20 Respect you two gents immensely, thanks and gratitude.
Though on a minor point of pedantism (sp), A Smith's opening salvo " Labour is the source of wealth ...", if one were to transpose to our time line we could consider labour as work, thus being equal to energy over a span of time ie. W = E/t [Sorry, the physic teacher in me took over].
I realise Smith's focus was human labour, but it may indicate he was on the right track.
And you fold it in to the story anyway, cheers
Appreciate Prof. Keens economic contributions but believe his concerns on climate change are overblown. What hapens 100 years plus from now is completely out of our control and we have no idea what the energy sources will be by then.
The cost of enegy determines how that energy is used and the vitality of the economy.
I also believe the financial sector has become a burden on the economy in the same way as excessive government.
From a societal perspective prosperity Lombard is correct on many if not all points.
"and we have no idea what the energy sources will be by then."
@@TheDanEdwardsabsolutely correct
I don't think we should talk about the future 100 years from now with the assumption that the global technological industrial civilization still exists. It will likely collapse much earlier, probably when we run out of affordable oil in the coming decades.
@@Pasandeeros dark thoughts indeed. Personally I am very confident if we make the right decisions there is a bright future ahead. I am not worried about the democracies, they are all on the right track. I think the large developing countries, China, Indonesia, India, Brazil and even Nigeria are OK. Russia is a basket case and seems likely to deindustrialise. The US is a bit of a worry but is nearly always late to the party. The worry is it seems determined to revert economically and environmentally. However, provided the rest of the world gets its act together, in the big scheme of things, what happens in the US may not matter much.
If the current debt based fiat system isn't scrapped asap nothing matters. When that is fixed, all in nuclear or humanity is facing extinction living out the last days in caves again. That's the reality right now; dictating if there's going to be another 100 years at all
I'm with you on the immediate future of the world Steve, in our lifetimes. That's why I bought a slice of mountainous Tasmania with river frontage 25 years ago. Can not understand why the majority of humanity cannot see this. How can they be so short-sighted?
I'm only stating the obvious, for the audience, because I'm certain you have thought of this. Your Escape Plan 100% depends upon the societal resilience of Tasmania itself continuing in order to respect those property rights
Great stuff! Steve is a long term hero of mine, who introduced me to system dynamics. I discovered him in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when he was the only economist who made any sense to me. Would be great if you talked to his colleague physicist Tim Garrett who is one of my favourite big picture thinkers and a Jevon's paradox specialist.
imho, orthodox economics is probably way less cohesive than heterodox economists give it credit for. monetary policy as practiced by central banks doesn't even seem to make sense under a loanable funds model which is purported by some prominent academics. orthodox economists seem to be in denial about these incoherencies also and come across as gaslighting when defending their profession as a whole.
Fantastic podcast. Thank you Chris
Many smiles for taking the time for this important interview. I'm saving it to listen uninterrupted. 💯💯👌
Money is what you must pay taxes with.
I read all of Zeihan and watched his videos in fascination, until I realized he told Americans, the petrochemical industry, and climate deniers that it will all just be great -- for them. Meanwhile, moving from metropolitan Texas to a retreat high in the Front Range.
Can I just put a shout out for those chairs. Labour and energy pulled together to create maximum comfort and beauty, for a 3 hour podcast.
inside a building sheltered from climate! 😂
Have you heard of weathering? The idea is that you could grind up a single mountain dump it in a lake and take out all human contributed CO2 from the last century. I think there's so many ways for us to adapt, we tend to have our vision to narrow
Link?
Who would have thought there are definitely limits to growth? We don’t live in utopia. Great conversation thank you
There's plenty of room at the bottom. -Feynman
We are not even close. 1% of the population of arth consumes more than DOUBLE 1/2 of the population
The climate costs topic is certainly in my wheelhouse. The main argument presented against the DICE model is that it is "totally absurd" and "the roads will be gone". This is not great persuasion. Luckily other better arguments are also made!
Before considering the better critiques it makes sense to compare DICE to PAGE. ChatGPT alleges that PAGE does not use a geographical temperature comparison for its warming costs and that it includes a much steeper and more dynamic consideration of tipping points, as well as more non temperature costs. Nevertheless DICE and PAGE are almost identical up to 4 degrees of warming, with a significant difference clear by 8 degrees. Since PAGE includes all the things DICE is alleged to completely lack, a better critique of DICE would need to explain this with more than rhetoric
I find it reasonably persuasive for Keen to allege that Nordhaus has a bias to assuming the world will not end because he likes its current system. Unfortunately this turns into a clear cut case of projection. Why? Keen proposes that the only possible solution to warming is dictatorship. Except the already cost effective solution of reflective particles in the stratosphere is a much more likely and desirable answer to actual catastrophic warming. It seems safe to say that he believes the world will end because he thinks the system is fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced (rather than Eastern European defensive pessimism like Chris). Always do a gut check as to whether someone's claim about someone else might apply to them!
Ok, lets go straight to the great argument made against IAM discounted warming cost models. Frontier economies have been growing at 2% for 300 years, but that's not actually a very long time. It is reasonable to consider what we should do if that breaks down and future generations experience rising warming costs without rising economic growth to adapt to it. In that case we should do everything we can to decarbonize. I don't know how to weight this possibility. Should it be a 25% possibility and therefore maybe justify cutting the discount rate in half? It's a really interesting question and a genuine and major objection to a cost model that uses a 3% discount as I believe Nordhaus does. There are two possibilities with this, and I think both of them don't go Keen's way
One is that the economy stops growing endogenously. In this case I would expect that the resources to fully decarbonize will not exist. Remember that Keen believes that global dictatorship is necessary to stop warming. Because it's very very hard. Without economic growth I propose that it would be near impossible, and certainly require dictatorships. However, again, stratospheric reflective particles would be a better solution than that. This is the absolute critical error with every catastrophic warming claim. If it's a catastrophe you do stratospheric particles. If it's a potential tipping point that is an unacceptable risk you do stratospheric particles at your chosen tipping point temperature. You can do other things, but nothing much more extreme than that makes sense because that is available
The second possibility for the end of economic growth is that extreme non-linear multi-factorial processes cause all the roads to be gone. Again, however, this is a case where you either produce a global alliance of climate policy dictatorships, or you do reflective particles in the stratosphere. I also believe that excellently designed regulatory processes for nuclear could allow it to compete directly with coal
There are some other points I could make about DICE, but I expect no one has the interest to go into them, or let me know. Points would include the two ways that DICE includes other costs than the geographically normed warming cost, and the observation that calling it linear when it is quadratic may be technically right in some way but is obviously wrong when you look at the cost curve on a graph. I would also point out that Keen alleges that Neoclassical economics have doomed the world by making people think 3 or 4 degrees of warming is fine, yet nearly every nation on earth has signed on to a proposed 2 degree limit. This again goes back to the projection bit. Looks like he expects everything to go wrong because of Neoclassical economics, not the climate! That's not why we're already at 1.5 degrees, it's because signing pledges does nothing to make actual transition a real probability by 2050. I think that is fundamentally impossible but I would suggest in particular Lomborg's proposal of massively increasing funding into green innovation to the tune of $200-300 billion a year, based on work by others suggesting it's around 10x more effective in the long run than short time horizon direct CO2 cuts
Cheers
I don't think you're calculating the geo-political implications of a country dumping sun reflective spray in the atmosphere. Imagine if a country that hates the country that implements this ends up with a negative outcome and forces you to stop by the barrel of a gun. Do you continue? If you stop and the climate rebounds violently and some insignificant islanders get wiped out, but at least you avoided a war, is that okay? Or should you take the, "I'm sorry the solar shade program destroyed your ability to create food ( it doesn't matter if it's your fault cause you will be blamed anyway) but this is for the betterment of mankind" route
Yes this is a great episode and dialogue and some of the stuff Steve Keen tells us about describes individuals who are beyond normal crimes and are committing Ecocide, full-on.
Nice conversation Mark. I am very pro nuclear and I think it is an essential part of our future. I appreciate the advocacy you do. Understanding money is not easy - especially since we have been told a certain story all our lives. It is hard to wrap the head around the fact that spending came first (thats where we get the money to pay the taxes). Bond issuance has a purpose, but its not because we need the money. Why would we borrow something we are free to create. I see lots of comments that don't think we have an issue with the climate and/or there is an easy technical solution just around the corner (just like fusion). We ate most of the fish in the sea and ate most of the animals on the planet and temperatures are up. About 10K years ago a 4 degree change meant we had an ice sheet that covered all of Canada and most of Europe. People can believe what they want, but I've seen enough credible evidence that there is something to worry about. We can choose to act or be forced to react. I have a preference, but I fear I am the minority. Party on!
WAIT
THE Steve Keen who met Doomberg one year ago (here on TH-cam!)
THE Steve Keen who proudly voiced malthusian view points in this encounter?
Steve Keen ... My answer to those who dictate the lower standard of living to all others in the name of the climate "You first"
I have been wondering how Nordhaus and Lomborg reached their conclusions about the lack of economic effects of climate change and your discussion with Keen provided some insight. Increased droughts - grow crops elsewhere. Floods - seawalls, levees, move to higher ground or effects overstated. High temps - better air conditioning and genetically modified plants. Other species impacts - as long as humans can continue their lifestyle, they don't care about other species or zoos can show us the remaining examples and genetic banks could bring them back in the future. They think the economy is resilient and will easily adapt to climate change effects. Keen and others think that collapse could happen at any time and in multiple ways. I lean toward some form of the great simplification happening in next decade or two. I hope it doesn't, but stock market crashes, financial collapses, simultaneous droughts in the worst possible places for food production, wars, etc. could happen at any time and head us down that road. Thanks for the podcast.
I used to somewhat follow Steve Keen and pretty familiar with the way he thinks. The whole idea of an economic model in relation to climate change is based on a series of assumptions. Those two should be decoupled. I take none of it seriously. Climate alarm skeptics like myself see the whole coupling as a gigantic futile exercise. Two points to make: 1:nobody knows the trajectory of future temperature and the assumed coupling w Co2 is both wrong and unproven/ non scientific, and 2: any model of economics is also based on losely assumptions of reality ie both are a construct that can be steered one way or the other. Economists have the habit of treating the world as a series of equations. Keen's worldview is marxist based. Nordhaus's quite another. How Keen knows that we underestimate the effects of climate change should give pause to anyone taking him seriously. To me, his assertiveness simply irritates me. He clearly doesnt know anything about the actual climate science, the uncertainties the system contains and just directs, or i should say biases his ideas
towards a goal he insists are certain. The discrepancy between the two are so glaringly obvious that i watch this video with some amusement.
Interesting he is on Decouple. Has Nate Hagan and Simon Michaux been on? I like their coherency much more, even though i think they are at least 75% mistaken.
"1:nobody knows the trajectory of future temperature and the assumed coupling w Co2 is both wrong and unproven/ non scientific,"
Steve kind of likes to dance at everybody's wedding. From cozying up to degrowthers to cheering for space x in its early days, throwing his support behind movements like ubi and positive money, while also coasting along the ride with MMT which could not be more opposed to these things.
He got more invites after he shed his leather jacket. Maybe it doesnt fit anymore by the looks of him..
He is truely left on centre. 🙂
Oh dear... oh deary dear...
I understood, the government can spend whatever it likes, cause it issues treasuries, which suffice the balance requirements in the books? Seems to be an incomplete theory.
It is charges for services, taxes, levies of all kinds ... I've seen a presentation on this stuff before.
Sounds like Nero throwing himself another party with your children as collateral.
Everything the government has is stolen.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Not correct. Most governments are constrained by the tax base and the amounts they can raise by bond sales.
The US is somewhat less constrained than most because around the world US government bonds are readily traded and considered very safe.
In effect much of the world showers money on the US because their own economies are crap😮.
@jimgraham6722 Well, you can try what the Germans did before the election of Hitler. Or ,Zimbabwe... print more and more money, which seems like what mmt says.
Why do we always assume that climate change arrives like a meteor? We maintain infrastructure as the climate changes, we've always and will continue to do this. This alarmism is pathetic
Some disasters are slow, others are fast.
Floods, uninhabitable temperatures, hell flames, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, Godzilla.
Pick your poison.
Infrastructure is expensive, and Nordhaus & Lomborg do not consider the cost of building new infrastructure.
In some ways you're not wrong, it will just be experienced as increased costs in many ways. There's a rule in finance, that people experience a loss twice as painfully as they perceive a foregone gain
The regular increased costs of maintenance will mostly be seen as a foregone gain. And then the increased disasters will be perceived as a loss. So when we see extrapolations like climate change hurting the economy by -12 percent, a reasonable fraction of that is because crops fail or because homes need to be rebuilt, or people have to move
1:24:35 ouch. We just went through a similar money printing thing with Covid. What did we get, inflation, a decrease in the standard of living for the average citizen.
The warmest places on the planet are at the equator... There ain't a whole lot of deserts there. Turns out deserts come from a lack of humidity not from heat
Yep and the warmer the air the more water vapour can be held so that holds up.
So climate science is not based on models? CO2 isn't a sole lever of temperature, like self-interest is a lever of action in economics? And temperature growth isn't a sole measure of climactic well-being, like GDP is a measure of economic success?
According to Wikipedia H2O has the largest greenhouse effect with 60% followed by CO2 with 26% followed by troposheric ozone with 8% followed by N2O plus CH4 with 6%. Water vapour would not increase in the atmosphere without another forcing factor such as a change in one of the other greenhouse gases This is due to equilibrium. There is a natural equilibrium between water in the surface of seas, oceans, lakes and the atmosphere. If you have another factor increasing temperature you can shift the hydrosphere equilibrium a bit to being able to hold more moisture due to the increase in temperature. I have a pH.D in Chemistry so this is simple stuff me. The same would apply to anyone with advanced Physics, Chemical Engineering etc. Changes in the Earth's axis tilt wrt the orbit around the sun is a forcing factor that causes ice ages and warm ages as well. This acts on a scale of millennia. Changes in the orbit are also a factor. Google Milankovitch cycles if you want to know more about this. Another factor that could cause major warming or cooling are massive asteroid or cometary impacts. I did my pHD on this topic. Some folks will benefit form climate waming some will be disadvantaged. If you live in Canada, or Russia, or Sweden you make benefit ... as long as you don't have climate refugees!
@shanewilson2484 I know how greenhouse effect works. I don't know how has Wikipedia estimated that 60% impact. Was it, per chance, a model?
@@shanewilson2484 water doesn't have as much of an effect as CO2 because it's not stable in the atmosphere while CO2 is
@@sstachura You would be one of the very few non-climatologists knowing how the greenhouse effect really works by knowing its qunatitative mechanism rather than just its qualitative description.
That is just emphasized by the fact you then would know by what calculation one comes to the values you are sceptical on.
On the other hand its not about the greenhouse effect as such, but how it increases by adding CO2, what makes water vapor a positive feedback due to the law of Clausius-Clayperon, which you as chemist do know well.
@@sstachura You can conduct experiments. The 60% was for water vapor contribution to greenhouse effect. If water vapor had no greenhouse effect we would have snowball earth and complex life might not have evolved. One can conduct experiments. For example, have a chamber with typical air constituents at a given latitude and altitude and a source of light mimicking the solar spectrum at that altitude and latitude and measure the temperature changes with change of atmosphere due to altitude and many other inputs. One can have a vast amount of experimental data mimicking conditions at a vast variety of atmos. conditions. Ultimately you put that into a model. Yes a model. Wiki sites science journal articles.
Just one problem.... The data that shows warming is flawed. It does not take into account stations that have become surrounded by cities and estimates areas that dont have stations based on the models of the warming. If you correct for these errors the warming completely disappears. Instead of warming causing issues its actually solar energy influx to the earth's magnetosphere that is driving the storms, earthquakes, and climate patterns.
For those errors is and always was corrected. Where did you get the wrong knowledge that it is otherwise?
The city heat island effect is well known. But it will also aggravate any global warming, as far as city folk are concerned!
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The climate is complex, and it's sometimes hard to find where the heat went. But it's not a hoax. glaciers are receding and the ocean is warming, and it's not because they are too close to cities
Well that was great though I need to understand more about governments creating money and balancing this off against reserves - what are these reserves? Do they exist in economies where public debt exceeds GDP significantly.
We need to hear more about how France financed their 58 reactor programme. What did Ontario do with its CANDU programme? Great stuff but I hope we can get a more targeted Round 2
The US Treasury still has about 8,000 tons of gold bullion. Some film flam merchants want to swap it out for bitcoin. My advice would be stick to gold.
Historically, government's will use up a currency, building and developing a currency until all wealth is extracted from a population and faith is lost in the currency (it takes about 50 years at 2% annual growth for mathematical and human lifespan reasons - nobody notices a 2% increase on a 5c candy bar) and like in the film _The Matrix,_ the system gets reset and the cycle starts again. This is described in the Bible as the jubilee. All debts are forgiven and all money is returned to the king.
Yes, but: what if the climate alarmists are wrong? What if Lomborg et al are wrong? The whole issue is the uncertainty in regards to what the climate will be. You cannot equate your way out of this. If you really, and i mean REALLY dig into the climate system you cannot come to the conclusion it is going this way or that. The main problem is that we cannot separate the signals and know the exact causal relationship. Not even proximal. So all we get is models, often linear, and projections. Most of it is based on the assumed effect of Co2. I say assumed because there is overwhelming evidence that it cannot do what it is assumed to do, not even from a physics point of view.
Then there is the assumption that warmer temperatures are bad. That they will lead to more extreme weather which is false.
And to finish off: natural cycles will trump anything humans can possibly do to the climate. We should adapt and correct landuse, clean air and waters, protect endangered species.
Climate alarmism will likely be gone by 2030. Certainly by 2035.
The road Keen proposes will lead to disaster and is purely driven by an asserted certainty. Being a marxist this does not come as a surprise..
1:14:54 Backing up your view of the absurdity of those economists, drop the temperature by 10 deg C [global average] and we enter an ice-age, raise the temp. by 10 deg C [global average] and we enter a scorched-scape hell-on-Earth.
Good luck living for every organism on the planet for the second scenario, barring at Antarctica, Greenland or very high-altitude fastnesses [and likely also underground]. Competition for standing space might become heated (boom-boom).
1:31:07 but of a broken window fallacy going on. What they fail to mention is that which isn’t calculated in.
Look I agree with you on tipping points and the unravelling of society. But @stevekeen what are your thoughts on permaculture and its role in building resilience in unpredictable systems. My personal experience has shown me that biodiverse dynamic food systems can be incredibly resilient and provide nutrition and productivity in the most hyperarid of climates. Look at the work of greening the desert. Time to be a little more positive
Consider bringing on an economist from the Austrian school of thought, if you haven’t already. Someone like Saifedean Ammous, Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Mark Thornton, Thomas DiLorenzo, Patrick Newman etc.
Thanks
Please don't . Thet have contributed what little they could a long time ago. Just dont need them now.
I can't believe that after all his work on modelling economics with double-entry ledgers that Keen has fallen hook, line and sinker into this MMT nonsense. It's as misguided a take on economics as Marx's labor theory of value. He's fallen in love with his analysis and fails to see what money actually is, nor where the model falls over
Interesting that Keen finishes with Mad Max. I watched this the other day and it kind of helps explain the original movie without resorting to the climate catastrophe causation: th-cam.com/video/FnD50llAkP4/w-d-xo.html
I find that most criticism of mmt is including false presumptions of what they mean. But I will criticize some of the education! When people look at mmt at the 101 level, the Educators tend to suggest that taxation is what retains the value for the currency. Not really true in most of our cases, where it is the issued household and corporate debt that backs the currency
We know a lot about climate based on ice cores from Greenland and analyzing the little bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them. The oldest ice cores in Greenland only go back about 150,000 years. That's because most of the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 150,000 years ago. It had melted. And every species of animal that was on the earth then including human beings is still in the earth now. We all survived the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. What's that tell you.?
@@JeffHoldenWS-NC stop being so logical; you're supposed to smile and nod at their story.
It tells me you can choose to admit being incompetent or a liar. Greenland was not ice free 150000 years ago and of course many species went extinct since then, as we know for sure from fossils.
Antarctica has had ice for millions of years. We can also look at multiple different other factors to model carbon dioxide levels.
I can't see why his modern monetary theory is so wonderful or radical when it involves taxing people, just like everything else.
By what method do you believe should be funded then? Do you think civilization is free?
We are funding civilisation now through taxation. Nordic countries are doing ok.
It comes down to people playing the game fairly, and that's a cultural rather than a financial theory issue.
@@chrisruss9861
In what way are the Nordic countries supposedly doing ok? Because they are not by any stretch of any imagination
@@pietersteenkamp5241
It is dictated by the economic system. Change the system and the outcome will be different. It's not the if, it's the how
Thanks for exposing Mr keen , a true Marxist thinker , we now know who not to pay attention to.
Pointless drivel and he useless in his understanding of modeling, programming and ocean chemistry.
As if you are someone to which to pay attention?
@TheDanEdwards back at ya .
Yeah, I enjoyed the part where government spending creates money because it's not a loan, it's a form of loan called a bond. And he says if a bond is a loan as the dummy neo-liberals think then the world will go entirely off the rails with deficit spending from his plan. Wonderful, tremendously convincing performance that he is not a reasonable source of information!
He's supposedly a "Marxist thinker" but has criticised Marx in his career as an economist?
He comes off as more of a neo-con sceptic and a bit of a eco/accelerationist nutter to be honest. With differing views in the centre left and right wings of politics, but nothing "Marxist".
I live in North Carolina which interesting allows you to watch global warming. Is you drive out towards the coast in the last 50 miles everything is sand. It's called the coastal plain. It was all underwater thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago And then the water receipted. And this is a cycle that's been repeated over and over again. And all the species on earth survived. What's that tell you
Definitely the best example WYSIWYG recognition, and the explanation for why pseudo random magical-functional judgement requires continuous re-evolution recognition relative-timing reiteration.
Ie the practical equivalent of temporal thermodynamical superposition focus on 0-1-2-3ness 3D-T line-of-sight holography-quantization nucleation.
It's always NOW everywhere-when logical superposition identification of probabilistic correlations shaping WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance Completeness, (it's the Absolute Zero-infinity Aether of reference-framing stupid, economics by any other name.., if you will)
I think he straw-manned Nordhaus and can’t believe anyone still believes in the Limits to Growth Amstrad computer models. His Stalinist/Mad Max depopulation scenario is a good example of catastrophist anti-humanism at its worst. 😮
Steve Keen has a massive iq. He’s way up here with with the big guns. Genius.
1:18:18 which #Bengal #famine there bud?
sounds like robert pindyck is compensating for something
7:52 it wasn’t always slave labour, it was hard working men with a shared vision working to better the human race. Everything built by slaves is not accurate.
For what ruined the climate change narrative was finding out the sahara desert in africa the size of a USA was green 10k years ago nature is that powerful😮
Also, in the past twenty years, an area the size of the USA of the Sahara has greened due to increased co2.
Trees have always fallen down, since there were trees. Therefore there can be no deforestation.
People have always died, therefore there can be no murder.
Dude, those are examples of how bad your thinking is.
@@wheel-man5319rubbish. There has been some success in limiting the further desertification around the Sahara, but no significant desert area has been reclaimed and is unlikely to be so without a return to the climatic and geographic conditions of that time. These included the last ice age with ice sheets covering northern Europe and adjacent mountain ranges and the absence of the Mediterranean Sea.
In short the Earth's climate would have to cool a great deal to re-green the mid latitude deserts.
@TheDanEdwards murder isn't just people dying and trees falling down isn't just deforestation
What are talking about bro
All I'm saying is the climate change narrative as it's being told is fake
@@wheel-man5319 That is not true. The Sahara Desert is expanding.
Even if it were true that the Sahara Desert was "greening" it would be really bad for us. Vegetation is much darker than sand (lower albedo), so "greening" of the Sahara would accelerate climate warming and hasten our doom.
I suppose we have to listen to an alarmist now and then. 🙄
Yes, just to remind ourselves they are in essense fascists, as Keen here clearly has indicated.
Steve sounds like a cranky old man with his use of swearing - wrong approach, be a gentleman.
that's just what aussies talk like.
lol, the real world is actually accomplishing things. This dude is just trying figure out how to sit in that big chair.
Why do people listen to old outdated professors? This is the only way they try to stay relevant. As Elon actually accomplishes things. It’s baffling.