The problems this article outlines are very real, but the explanation for the underlying mechanics doesn't really pass any kind of a sniff test for me. The central thesis is that real economic growth is stagnating because the overhead for producing energy grows with time. But this is not the case! Fossil fuels will run out eventually, yes, but nearly every other type of energy production does not suffer from this, and is in fact getting better over time. Solar panels of today are miles ahead of those of yesterday. Similarly we're building out more and more wind and thermal energy. Nuclear is also fine, if we don't account for the regulatory difficulty in actually getting new plants up and running.
Yes, any shortage of energy we have today is more or less entirely voluntary on a species level.
You can blame Moloch or wall Street or whatever for making it functionally impossible for whatever multipolar market-actor reasons, but with the right choices we could have plenty of energy today, just as we could (but don't) feed everyone on Earth.
Eventually the will bea point where it does actually become physically impossible to generate that much power without melting the Earth's crust or boiling the seas, but that's a long, long way away.
Seems more correct to say with different choices rather than the right choices.
For example plenty of energy likely means far more nuclear reactors, and the unfortunately truth is that most can be used to breed plutonium, so while we could be living with energy abundance, we also at least slightly increase the chance of global nuclear war. (IMO probably still worth it but it's no longer a super clear right/wrong).
With food, the problem is not producing it, it's the distribution. You aren't going to get it distributed in many countries that need it without overthrowing governments which will include lots of killing and bombing. Now it being the right choice to feed everyone is much murkier.
It points out a problem but ignores the obvious solution. We want the nominal value of stocks, houses, and essentially everything to continually increase. The escape hatch is that these can increase in value slower than inflation and thus be reduced in real value.
Everybody assumes that correction will happen via crash. And perhaps that's the case for stock market prices. But while we have had housing price crashes in the past, that's very much the exception. House prices are very sticky, people are irrationally unwilling to sell their houses for a loss. I've seen several markets where real estate nominal prices stayed roughly flat for a couple decades, moving the market from "overpriced" to "underpriced" without anybody really noticing.
"Just build more houses" is the fix for many (but not all) of the US economy problems. Not sure about the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applies there too.
Home building is indeed the solution, but it can never outrun the printing presses. Ultimately there is a bare minimum cost of a house too. If people are too poor to pay for that, the home building pipeline will have to stall. People need to be productive and competitive enough in the economy to be able to pay for all the new houses being built.
People want absolute values to be ever increasing too, but they'd settle for nominal values to be ever increasing. This violates the law of supply and demand, and common sense about depreciation and changing demographics. We should experience falling prices as material wealth increases in the world. Governments and money lenders hate this because they want to print off as much money as they possibly can get away with (as if they know how much that amount even is). They can't stand the idea of someone being rewarded for conserving their own resources, when those resources could be siphoned off for some other bullshit.
