I admit I only skimmed it but I definitely disagree with the conclusion which seems to be somewhat summed up in this earlier sentence:
> If we think about it, the prices of basic commodities, such as food and fuel, cannot rise too high relative to the wages of ordinary (also called “non-elite”) workers, or the system will grind to a halt.
I don't see it. If fuel is too expensive we start driving electric vehicles. This one is easy because we already have solution that we know it's viable but in many such cases we don't even know the alternative solution yet because there was no incentive to develop it.
Food market is also evolving and becoming more efficient (optimization functions leave something to be desired but that's another story).
I have not enough knowledge to have a strong opinion on peak oil, but if it stays cheap then so be it. Just don't make other people life miserable. So if it enforces some cost on other people, they should cover it (or ideally it should be opt-in), which would make the price, which now includes that cost, higher.
Shared resources like clean air and ocean are a complex problem and the dynamic I described above doesn't apply because prisoners dilema etc.
I'd love to learn btw, if there is at least any theoretical utopia system (even if it's not feasible to implement it) in which market could reasonably manage those shared resources. Just going to war with country which won't limit pollution to the limit we agreed on seems suboptimal. Trade war seems like an improvement but just moves the problem (there's now prisoners dilemma regarding trading with given country)
If gasoline costs get out of hand I think its more likely that existing cars switch to hydrogen, and the hydrogen is generated using the grid, and the grid is supplied by whatever is currently the cheapest means of producing electricity.
> If we think about it, the prices of basic commodities, such as food and fuel, cannot rise too high relative to the wages of ordinary (also called “non-elite”) workers, or the system will grind to a halt.
I don't see it. If fuel is too expensive we start driving electric vehicles. This one is easy because we already have solution that we know it's viable but in many such cases we don't even know the alternative solution yet because there was no incentive to develop it.
Food market is also evolving and becoming more efficient (optimization functions leave something to be desired but that's another story).
I have not enough knowledge to have a strong opinion on peak oil, but if it stays cheap then so be it. Just don't make other people life miserable. So if it enforces some cost on other people, they should cover it (or ideally it should be opt-in), which would make the price, which now includes that cost, higher.
Shared resources like clean air and ocean are a complex problem and the dynamic I described above doesn't apply because prisoners dilema etc.
I'd love to learn btw, if there is at least any theoretical utopia system (even if it's not feasible to implement it) in which market could reasonably manage those shared resources. Just going to war with country which won't limit pollution to the limit we agreed on seems suboptimal. Trade war seems like an improvement but just moves the problem (there's now prisoners dilemma regarding trading with given country)