by Summary:
If you enjoyed this video, you might also like my most popular video, "Don't Study Economics, Study THIS Instead." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO7iCv_NsPE -- Who is Dr. Steve Keen? Dr. Steve Keen is an influential economist who has dedicated over 50 years to challenging mainstream economic theories. Since his days as a university student, he has been engaged in a David vs. Goliath battle against conventional economic models. Holding a Ph.D. in economics, Dr. Keen is well-known for his critical analysis and advocacy for more realistic economic approaches. His work emphasizes the importance of accounting for financial instability and incorporates elements of complex systems theory. Engineers, finance professionals, and IT experts will appreciate his methodical breakdown of economic
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
If you enjoyed this video, you might also like my most popular video, "Don't Study Economics, Study THIS Instead." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO7iCv_NsPE -- Who is Dr. Steve Keen? Dr. Steve Keen is an influential economist who has dedicated over 50 years to challenging mainstream economic theories. Since his days as a university student, he has been engaged in a David vs. Goliath battle against conventional economic models. Holding a Ph.D. in economics, Dr. Keen is well-known for his critical analysis and advocacy for more realistic economic approaches. His work emphasizes the importance of accounting for financial instability and incorporates elements of complex systems theory. Engineers, finance professionals, and IT experts will appreciate his methodical breakdown of economic
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
Matias Vernengo writes What is heterodox economics?
| If you enjoyed this video, you might also like my most popular video, "Don't Study Economics, Study THIS Instead." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO7iCv_NsPE -- Who is Dr. Steve Keen? Dr. Steve Keen is an influential economist who has dedicated over 50 years to challenging mainstream economic theories. Since his days as a university student, he has been engaged in a David vs. Goliath battle against conventional economic models. Holding a Ph.D. in economics, Dr. Keen is well-known for his critical analysis and advocacy for more realistic economic approaches. His work emphasizes the importance of accounting for financial instability and incorporates elements of complex systems theory. Engineers, finance professionals, and IT experts will appreciate his methodical breakdown of economic phenomena and his development of the Minsky software, which models financial crises. Dr. Keen's contributions are crucial for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of how economic systems can impact technological and financial environments. His teachings offer valuable insights into the economic forces shaping our world. By following his analysis, professionals can gain a better grasp of economic dynamics that influence their fields. |
Think of the trillions it will cost to protect coastal [and riverine- where rivers flow into the sea] cities from rising sea levels. Banglladesh will be underwater. So will many other rich agricultural lands
WHO FUNDS ECONOMISTS MODELS? Big Oil?
They can’t control climate change but they can control the publishers. Much like the big pharma.
You should do a podcast with Garys economics
"…no amount of cost benefit analysis…", i like this conclusion. I didn't realize economists were deliberately ignoring known tipping points. We just had a methane scare and now we're all watching that like a hawk. Where are the material economists? Is it all philosophical idealism?
It costs a fortune to render hitherto intelligent human scientists into gibbering idiots. Who's paying for these suicidal numbers plucked from (thin?) air? Is it possible to follow the money on these irrational and/or criminally perverting influences?
As french engineer Jancovici puts it, knowing that during previous ice age the global temperature was just 5°C below pre-industrial and the oceans were lying 120 meters (360 feet) below today level… and London was covered with hundred meters of ice.
A marginal fall in GDP for sure 😂
I guess that with an insulated roof you could still do some economics math 😅
"a quadratic best models the damage as a function of warming"
LOL! That premise is so laughable real scientists tell actual jokes that start with it.
The fact that economics professors get paid significantly more than other professors that do exclusively "desk work" (mathematicians, humanities profs, and particularly other social scientists) makes them a little more suspect to me, as well as their blind spots and biases and potential to influence the real economy over the long-term.
And now you show this Nordhaus just is straight-up lying! (sorry Steve, I don't buy your self-deception excuse for him. If he teaches at Yale he's sharper than that). How much of Elon Musk's wealth would it take to bribe every economics professor in America and Europe into teaching HIS economics? 1%?
You need to get in touch with Gary Economics …Hmm maybe you know him . the big question for me is how to monetize Green Transition . I see some Hydrogen startups are about to fail
Millimeter-wave deep drilling to twenty miles in every community on earth is not fact, it’s in its infancy, transitioning from lab to field tests and on to production. Geothermal is not yet cheapest. But without a need for a grid buildout, and if collocated with plasma-assisted nitrogen fixation for ammonia that may be far-cheaper than Haber-Bosch, it begins to shine.
Little is known of the science at that depth. But say that microwaves vaporize stone in the way they do at the surface, and that those atoms are ionized in nitrogen gas plasma. Then it's expected, they'd follow the current in an updraft and settle-out atop, where raw power is would be captured and distributed locally, with no need for turbines it shames prior methods.
Maybe it won't work that way, maybe steam power is the first and only way. Maybe a pipe to the mantle will act like a chimney and draw uncontrollable temperatures to rise in convection. Maybe, maybe, maybe……
Let’s get the job done and find out if oil peaks and shortages will forever sabotage economic stability and peace efforts. Or if ideas, ingenuity, and drive, have a role in our future as it had in our domestic industrial past. We’ve let economists and financialists have their way with us for a half-century of failed logic. It’s time the general public found the means to bypass that rigged system, using tools like Reg CF or with US-backed dedicated securities that bet on TVA and Hoover Dam-scale public works.
Local power for electric-arc steel mills, electric heat cement making, or just running your toaster and charging your car, it's stabile, dependable, and good. When Steve Keen can see energy as a steady graph-line utility, instead of a whiplash variable, his smile will be brighter too. Roll up your sleeves and get to the bottom of it!
That's interesting–I have known of geothermal of course but hadn't known it could be used to replace the Haber-Bosch process.
I realise the importance of energy of course, but also the need to respect the biosphere. On Tom Murphy's calculations, though human waste energy dumped into the biosphere is a miniscule contribution to global warming today, at a 2.3% p.a. increase (which is less than the average for the last 250 years, since the start of the Industrial Revolution), within 400 years the waste energy will be sufficient to raise the temperature of the biosphere to 100°C: see https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/. Of course life would be eliminated well before then. So, if we are to continue increasing energy use per capita, we have to move production off planet (and even there, energy per capita levels become ridiculous with continued exponential growth. So we have to respect the limits.
@@gregoryclifford6938 No, Murphy's worries are simply the application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You can't do work without generating waste, and the increase in temperature he predicts comes straight from the Laws of Thermodynamics. Murphy does the sort of long-term thinking that economists pretend to do.
400 years of heat and insulation inputs may have put us out of that precolonial equilibrium, but hot and moist equatorial air rising is descending in a polar vortex over North America. It's extending to the Gulf and Eastern Seaboard this winter, and that's obviously radiating more heat to upper reaches and into space than before. One might expect that process to increase until 400 years of deficit were achieved, had the climate not accommodated that increase already and temps are still rising. World temps are witness to the fact that we cannot just continue to accumulate until some tipping point is reached and the ocean and atmospheric cooling cycles are overwhelmed. The Honky Cat theory of going back to a mythical time of love for the land is nonsense.
EU's addiction to Putin's oil and gas fueled his conquest ambitions and Climate Change is not his worry in his lifetime. He is an existential threat to Europe, make no mistake. Replacements of LNG from the Gulf can never be enough, and without sun or wind, some other means for an industrial economy must be thrust into the picture for defeating him. That much is plain, because the corruption of EU energy was the vanguard of his march into Europe. What do we have?
New microwave deep-drilled geothermal tech is in its infancy, it was yesterday, as it will be tomorrow. Maybe Dutch windmills would lift Mississippi waters to the Continental Divide for watering new croplands on either side, but EU has no wind or sun for alternative energy. Rising seas will be fought on the beaches in Holland and England, but not in the way Churchill had faced-down Hitler. Economic failure invites rising tyrants for the sake of economic stability in law-and-order. This is not the end, it's not the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning, to paraphrase that statesman. Deep geothermal does offer that promise.
Royal Dutch Shell is where Professor Keen's podium should be mounted. Only law will force Big Oil into the role of a public utility. MONEY is the driver of change, not conscience. I'm not President or Senator, CEO nor Chairman. Wall Street leveraged-takeovers and looting are the way corporate leaders of the Jack Welch school make their money today. Forcing energy companies down a slippery greased chute to new forms of equal or greater profit is the ONLY way that Steve Keen's lofty goals will be achieved. China makes wind turbines and solar panels, and everyone knows they have no conscience and no consequences in doing just the opposite of what Steve or Nobel have to say.
A New(er) Deal public/private contract must be achieved, whereby shareholder interests and public interests are both equal partners in chartered corporate enterprise. There must be private funding from family savings and retirement funds with public sponsorship and guarantees, public university research arms must be proving the science, and private interests must do the necessary drilling. Oil companies are the 'natural team' there. We cannot become six billion nomads in some folk lore world of yore, we must face the future…right now.
Call me conspiratorial but I think they know what they're publishing is patently ridiculous. The purpose of these papers is just to justify inaction on the climate crisis and insist on continuing on our destructive path in pursuit of infinite growth.
Buying back dedicated US bonds to stabilize the market for them makes sense, as it frees-up money for other normal functions, while returns to society in say defeating Putin’s mafia-like regime or making abundant cheap replacement energy for industrial expansion and prosperity fit the purpose of federal governance.
I don’t see an action plan, do you? Trump’s unraveling of subsidies for Chinese-made solar and wind, and the lack of funding vehicles for alternatives are clear. EU has the greatest interest, but funding American enterprise is not their goal while war is waged on their doorstep.
Big Oil has an open hand for tax cuts with a promise of providing energy to warm and lube the globe. It won’t build refineries for the oil found in America, expecting a whiplash return of electric mandates in four years time.
English and Aussie interests teeter in the same way, expecting changes in India and China fortunes to be coerced into energy extortion corruptions willingly. Steve Keen is clear-eyed, but public outcry is not forthcoming, as evident in US elections, and in the greater impact of energy prices in consumer budgets.
Barring a secure tool for Keen-allied citizens to act independently, and no demonstrated bulletproof systems to replace oil and gas that doesn’t finance tyrannical regimes, the common sense of the common man’s embrace of “Drill Baby, Drill” only lines the pockets of those opposing the good Professor’s sermon. Zero chance, without an action plan.
Professor keen, i skimmed over an interesting paper recently that appears to have corrected for richard tol, mendelson and nordhauss main methodology error. It looks at global temperatures vs local temperatures and calculates that social cost of carbon is 1367 instead of 31 dollars. It also calculates that one degree of warming would reduce gdp by 12 percent, which is worse than what nordhaus thought 6 degrees would be…
I can't link the paper because I'm my phone but it's not reviewed yet and you can find a guardian article on it, says six times worse than before.
The thing is I still think the paper left out a lot of damage that climate change would do. Things like air bourne vector diseases and multiple crisis occuring at the same time arnt accounted for. Of course, this is very hard to calculate but I'd imagine heatwave, hurricanes and droughts happening all at once would have a multiplier effect and also a political one.
Anyways. I thought the paper was interesting because it did not cite you or quiggin or anyone else that pointed out the error that tol made.
I know the paper of course. It is better in the sense that it predicts substantial damages, whereas the guff pumped out by Nordhaus lulls politicians into thinking that global warming is a minor problem for future politicians. But it's still using the same methodology, of using current regional economic and climate data to attempt to predict what a global increase in temperature will do to human civilisation.
I study fishes. It is a hopeful sign that at least some economists are finally starting to think about what I would call the "external costs", that is the costs that don't show up on the books, but get passed on to everyone else, much as pollution, false advertising, fraud, unmet political promises, and corruption do. As a marine biologist it's impossible to ignore that there is now overwhelming evidence that the world's oceans are warming at an accelerating rate, as is to be expected given the exponential nature of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it is having a dramatic impact on marine life. As noted in one of the graphs in the most interesting video lecture, the exponential nature of the curve is only now begining to reveal itself. The more problematic aspect that is underappreciated here is that it isn't just geophysical "tipping points" that are of most concern. It is the subtle, not well understood, but nonetheless relentless shifts in biodiversity that undermine the stabilty of ecosystems, disturbing their structure and dynamics. These effect, although poorly understood, are changing rapidly as the oceans ccntinue to heat at rates not seen in millions of years. It isn't just corn and wheat that humans depend on, but countless other species both marine and terrestrial, many of which are under extreme stress, many nearing extinction we need to be concerned about as well.
A simple example is illustrative. There is much talk about the economic importance the Panama Canal to world trade and geopolitics. So much so that Nicaragua and China are proposing to build a sealevel canal as an alternative should armed conflict break out over control of the Panama Canal, as well as to address the increasing problem of more persistent droughts not providing enough freshwater to operate the exisitng locks at rates previously possible. Overlooked is the fact that an uncertain mixture of two species, Pterois volitans predominantly, but also including Pterois miles, have previously invaded the Western Atlantic as a result of aquarium releases of Indo-Pacific origin. These species introduced off Florida have spread quickly throughout the entire Western Atlantic, causing tremendous adverse impact on fisheries, both recreational and commercial throughout the region. A sealevel canal will introduce these opportunistic predators into the Eastern Pacific, which in conjunction with global warming would have deavastating impact on fishing in this region as well. In the meantime, P. miles has recently invaded the Mediterranean and will likely, in time, invade West Africa to the same effect as this region continues to heat as welll. Just this one or a few small biotic changes alone facilitated by smalll further increases in global temperatues will likely dramatically affect the cost of seafood and the viability of many fisheries, with cascading effects upon the people and industries that depend upon them. The greatest threats from climate change will not come from temperature directly, but rather the relentless, numerous seemingly small destabilizing changes to the ecosystems that we humans depend upon for our survival.
One can ban the freedom of speech to bring up the topic, and heap derision on those who point it out, spread misinformaton like mad to dispute it, or even quietly and surrepticiously pass the costs on to someone else, but as Professor Keen aptly points out, it won't ban the consequences economic or otherwise no matter how many faulty mathematical models are employed to do so.
Many thanks for this comment. This wisdom is, as you imply, completely missing from economists, and especially in how they model climate change. My favorite instance of this is in Nordhaus's 1994 paper "Expert Opinion on Climate Change." American Scientist 82 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775100) where one of his "experts" said "For my answer, the existence value [of species] is irrelevant–I don't care about ants except for drugs" (I'd lay odds that this was Larry Summers).
Ironically, I think we're lucky that the crisis is coming at us predominantly through CO2 levels and temperature rises. We can contemplate reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but with biodiversity loss, all we can do is stop it: reversing it is out of the question. If the primary immediate effect was the destruction of biodiversity, then by the time we realised the consequences, it would be too late to do anything.
Perhaps you can tell us why we have no answer on temperatures rising before CO2 rose. Ice core data, what does it suggest?
Engineers, Finance, IT Pros, and Economic Enthusiasts: Learn 50+ years of Real Economics in only 7 Weeks. Weekly with me.
Learn more: https://apply.stevekeenfree.com
The damage is quadratic? But climatic impacts are a cubic relationship… did… did they not factor in feeding workers as part of the impact of climate change?
They didn't feed in anything except their own whiteboard delusions. There are even claims in the literature that imply workers can eat GDP directly–if food output falls by 40%, we'll make up the fall in GDP in a few years. See Nierenberg, W. A., L. Machta, W. Nordhaus, R. Revelle, T. C. Schelling, J. Smagorinsky, P. E. Waggoner and G. M. Woodwell (1983). Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. Washington, National Academy Press, p. 475 https://archive.org/details/changingclimate018865mbp/mode/2up
I did one subject of economics during my MBA at UQ, and even I can see how this makes perfect sense (and I am certainly looking at this critically). My god