

The Great Recession of 2011-2020 - yters
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/23/the-great-recession-of-2011-20/

======
izendejas
Why does Reagonomics get such bogus credit for fiscal responsibility? Cutting
taxes while also increasing spending is not fiscally responsible. Reagan was
by far one of the worst offenders, unlike what the author leads you to believe
with a personal quote from Reagan. A simple google search for "reagan deficit
spending" will show just how great this country did during his 8 years.

That fallacy clarified, this isn't about democratic or republican, liberal or
conservative. The author brushes this off, too, but devotes most of the
article to implying the opposite.

So the point is to evaluate the true cost of something. Wonderful! Except, I
think the author doesn't go far enough. What of indirect costs and benefits of
oil exploration vs. nuclear vs. coal mining, etc?

The problem with not focusing on alternative energies is that you continue to
feed an anti-imperialistic enemy that then forces you to spend trillions of
dollars for the "sake of national security."

Yes, please, find the true cost of coal mining, oil exploration, etc, and that
means factoring not just immediate profit losses and tax subsidies. This means
analyzing just how much, for example, it costs to fund wars in order to
satisfy our oil demands (ie, how much this country has spent in wars bribing
people, funding our veteran's health care, etc for the sake of national
security, while we indirectly fund these very terrorist organisations).

So it's okay to debt our way to fund such wars, but it's not okay to invest in
the education and health of this country's biggest economic contributors--it's
citizens?

The problem isn't deficit spending/debt. Many successful startups or companies
go through such phase where it makes sense to borrow, to dig yourself out of a
hole. The problem is whether you reinvest this back into the country, its
infrastructure, its education, its health, its green technologies, etc.

FDR didn't get us out of the Great Depression. That's right. WWII did, deficit
spending did. But then, unlike now the US was producing something other
countries needed. Green technology (nuclear, solar, whatever, let them dish it
out with some subsidies to offset initial costs) has to be the answer
nowadays.

~~~
euroclydon
I think most of what you are saying is overshadowed by two points that were
made in the article:

1) Every bridge, road, factory, and in fact most of our economy is build on
the (nearly) free energy that we get from pulling hydrocarbons out of the
ground. I'm not morally justifying it, but if a couple hundred billion spent
on war, allows Iraq to quadruple oil production, then we will recoup those
hundred billion by using that (nearly) free energy found in those Iraqi
hydrocarbons.

2) Regan's or any other era's budget deficits pale in comparison the the
unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. The deficits are
manageable, but the retirement and health promises are not.

~~~
izendejas
1) what about the cost of diverting resources to finance the war? what of the
health costs we incur for the health benefits of the wounded, support of their
families, etc? You're not addressing my point. You're merely reinforcing it by
being as short-sighted as the author of the article and not going far enough
to compute the actual costs.

2) huh? did you see the debt reagan left us? and again, my issue is we're
spending money on wars and cutting it from education and other vital
investments, anyway. medicare and social security are a different discussion.

~~~
euroclydon
Oil is THE resource right now. The author is saying that when that ceases to
be true, all bets are off, and we won't even recognize civilization.

Plus, you don't think healthcare depends on oil?

------
gfodor
I know it's an economic fallacy to say "this time it's different" but really,
I think this time it is.

The push for green energy has gotten enough momentum that new nuclear plants
are being built and the money is flowing into silicon valley energy startups.
I think this go-around the smart minds are going to be working on energy, not
dot coms or wall St. One can reasonably hope that we will see more than a few
energy breakthroughs in this decade. When they come all bets are off.

~~~
Fixnum
From [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/how-a-
ne...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/how-a-new-jobless-
era-will-transform-america/7919/4/) (appeared several times at news.yc):

"Princeton’s 2009 graduating class found more jobs in financial services than
in any other industry. According to Princeton’s career-services director,
Beverly Hamilton-Chandler, campus visits and hiring by the big investment
banks have been down, but that decline has been partly offset by an uptick in
recruiting by hedge funds and boutique financial firms."

~~~
raintrees
Isn't there some lead time involved? Shouldn't this be tested in one to two
years for a better indication of what the recent green wave will encourage?

------
johnohara
I'm more concerned about the potential problems related to food, water and air
than I am about those related to petroleum, metals and minerals.

I agree that it's important to know "the true cost of things." It's the main
point of the article and advice well taken. Much of the sand our present
economy seems built upon is directly related to "not knowing the true cost of
things" or at least "not being willing to accept the true cost of things."

~~~
jerf
"I'm more concerned about the potential problems related to food, water and
air than I am about those related to petroleum, metals and minerals."

Those issues are not cleanly separable, if indeed they are separable at all.

------
dantheman
The "true cost of energy " from the coal example is perfect example of why tax
incentives & subsidies hurt us. If it takes more energy to move coal out of a
mine than it generates then the mine will go out of business, that is unless
the coal is used as an economical store of energy -- i.e. we use fuel to power
our cars instead of nuclear because fuel is easy to move etc.

------
aresant
One of the key points in the article is how inexpensive energy is critical to
both economic recovery and a high quality of life.

Making a jump, if we put together a heroic "Manhattan Project"-like commitment
to supporting such energy measures, it’s feasible that we could all live
better with a lower GDP, is it not?

~~~
tomsaffell
>we could all live better with a lower GDP, is it not?

Yes and No. GDP is a measure of production, expressed in dollars. However,
when GDP growth is computed, changes in the value of money do not have an
effect. E.g. GDP growth from year-1 to year-2 is:

    
    
      (volume produced in year 2)*(prices in year 1)
      /
      (volume produced in year 1)*(prices in year 1)
    

So reducing the price of something does not in-of-itself have an effect on GDP
growth (or GDP stated in nominal terms). However, it's often the case that
reducing the price of something means that there is more demand for, so more
is produced, so (volume produced in year n+1) goes up, so GDP grows.

Summary: if the price of energy is reduced it will most likely lead to GDP
growth - whether we could all then live better lives, I don't know. I'd like
to hear a good _holistic_ explanation of why GDP growth is required for
national happiness..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp> \- see 'Adjustments to GDP'

~~~
izendejas
I can give you a good holistic explanation for why GDP growth alone is not
required for national happiness. According to some, Nordic countries tend to
be happier. They have the highest taxes, they work less, have virtual
universal health care, but at the same time, on a per capita and per hour
basis, they're virtually just as productive. Not that I blindly favor such
policies here, but I don't know, maybe there's something to be learned from
them. They seem to have had _stable_ growth since the 80s. (Note: I really
want to stable "stable.")

~~~
kingkongreveng_
The Nordic countries are ethnically homogeneous with rooted communities. They
have high average IQs and very low crime. I'd read a lot more into that than
anything to do with economic or healthcare policy. The somewhat nordic
Minnesota is also fairly "happy" despite its American economic system. Maybe
you should be advocating policies that steer the country to being
homogeneously white, middle class, and immobile? Somehow I doubt it.

~~~
starkfist
_Nordic countries tend to be happier_

It's all a ruse. The Nordics simply have deep-rooted cultural proclivities to
lie about how happy they are.

~~~
kingkongreveng_
That would explain why the nordic populations in the upper mid-west are
similarly "happy"...

~~~
starkfist
Indeed...

