Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is energy, actually? (2011)

jancovici.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 286 posts

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#131

Post by mrpopo »

BjoernKW wrote: post #88

The title is misleading in that it's not exactly the conclusion the article arrives at. The article has it quite the other way round: Once energy consumption doesn't grow anymore we either need more efficient means of growth (i.e. less energy consumption per growth unit) or we have to forego growth. It's pre-Industrial-Age Malthus all over again: Barring paradigm shifts that allow for more efficient production planet…

> I suggest that instead of obsessing with the NRJ/POP term in the equation we focus on GDP/NRJ instead.

That's what absolutely everyone has been doing for the past 70 years. What happens usually when energy efficiency is called the rebound effect. We will create more with as much energy, not create as much with less energy.

Also, note that creating as much with less energy will limit GDP growth as well, as the GDP is based on creation of goods and services.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#132

Post by lukasLansky »

pmorici wrote: post #99
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

Efficiency gains from technology advances in past 20 years have masked inflation. Look at industries like houses, healthcare, and education which tech hasn’t optimized to the same extent and you see massive inflation

Inflation, using the usual definition, cannot be 'masked by technology' as technology is one of the things that legitimately determine general price level. Inflation counts and always counted general price level with effects of technology advancements taken into account. So the poster you are replying to has it right: inflation is low.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#133

Post by TwoHeadedBeast »

syshum wrote: post #112
lonelappde wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question is whether you deserve salary gains to cover financial inflation, or if price cuts did to technology advancements are good enough.

Rent, Food, Gas, Utilities are the biggest drivers for personal cost of living increases, these do not have price cuts due to technology. All 4 of the big household expenses are increasing at a rate of 7-20% depending on where you live

Where are food prices going up? I can't say I've noticed it where I live.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#134

Post by martythemaniak »

BjoernKW wrote: post #88

The title is misleading in that it's not exactly the conclusion the article arrives at. The article has it quite the other way round: Once energy consumption doesn't grow anymore we either need more efficient means of growth (i.e. less energy consumption per growth unit) or we have to forego growth. It's pre-Industrial-Age Malthus all over again: Barring paradigm shifts that allow for more efficient production planet…

I guess we should give some props to Malthus - he may actually have the single most successful/impactful Zombie Idea (per Krugman's definition) in the history of the world.

It's rather telling that even a place like Hacker News has trouble understanding what technology is, what it has done and what it can do.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#135

Post by Ma8ee »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

> I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer.

Is this really true? Aren't you mixing up production growth with production?

Imagine I live alone on my small farm in the middle of nowhere. I produce 20 bags of wheat every year. I eat 19 and save one. So every year I add one bag of wheat to my pile. No one else gets poorer. Or does the existence of the wheat in my barn somehow decrease the value of all other wheat in the world?

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#136

Post by pjc50 »

hliyan wrote: post #77
pjc50 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21664066 ; inflation is already near-zero, and this is controlled through interest rates rather than simple M0.

I do agree with this, but what of pension plans? At 2% inflation, a fund of $10,000 will deplete to slightly over $6000 (inflation adjusted) in 20 years...

We're back to Picketty and "r > g" here; you're not holding the pension as cash, so you're making a return, so what rate is the return at? And how does the aggregate rate of return compare to the rate of growth in the economy?

Or are people seriously proposing having 0 GDP growth and 0% interest rates and 0% expected stockmarket returns? A strange world that's almost certainly unstable.

(There is a much broader question that if you expect a dollar to buy you a loaf of bread today, is it really reasonable to expect the same dollar to buy a loaf of bread in 40 years? And what level of stasis would be required to achieve that?)

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#137

Post by spoovy »

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Without inflation, how would governments shrink their debts? Paying it proves enormously unpopular. Educate people so they understand the importance of running a balanced budget and sound monetary policy. Most politicians have no interest in this though as they believe (probably rightly) that it's too complex or dry for most people, so they just bribe the populace again and again (see UK Labour Party for an current egregious example).

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#138

Post by maxsilver »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

> Inflation is already zero in much of the West.

There is no way this is true. Real world inflation (the kind all working people experience directly) is somewhere between 5-10% year-over-year in the US + Canada today.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#139

Post by mikl »

Funny how it’s always private spending that’s being targeted by the people who want us to become poorer to save the environment.

And yes, becoming poorer is what giving up on GDP growth means for most of us, since the population is growing.

How about we started cutting the fat in the public sector? All that debt-fuelled overspending western governments engage in has a massive climate impact.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#140

Post by pjc50 »

Ma8ee wrote: post #135
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

> I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. Is this really true? Aren't you mixing up production growth with production? Imagine I live alone on my small farm in the middle of nowhere. I produce 20 bags of wheat every year. I eat 19 and sa…

> Or does the existence of the wheat in my barn somehow decrease the value of all other wheat in the world?

If you are so remote that the wheat is guaranteed to remain off the market forever, no matter if your starving neighbour comes and offers you a fortune for it? Perhaps. Otherwise the answer has to be yes.

It's not just me saying it, it was one of the more important cases the US Supreme Court heard in the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Post reply on HN