Hall says growth in energy use per capita flatlined, and that happened mostly because established industries rigged the system to keep themselves on top, and stifled new technologies in a snarl of red tape and regulation. (For the greater good, of course. </snark>)
I think about half of Gordon’s policy RXs are wise, the other half deeply unwise. To the extent public policy has anything to do with growth (a lot, I think) it seems pretty clear US policy circa 1930 (just before the New Deal) worked a lot better than US policy circa 1970.
Whatever pain reverting to public policy circa 1930 would entail seems to be outweighed by the vast increase in per-capita wealth. Several studies have estimated per capita GDP at 3x to 4x what it is today, if the earlier policies had been kept in place.
By coincidence I recently calculated per-capita energy use in the USA in 1970 and now. Basically there is no change. Not surprising considering the huge increase in energy costs at around that time. So I agree with the above post.
When you consider the very strong correlation between energy and GDP—across countries and across time—the stagnation ceases to be a mystery. Computers don’t use very much energy in comparison to things like cars so they are the one exception.
There is a view that renewables technology will be “too cheap to meter”. As far as I can tell this is completely wrong. You need to look at the entire energy system not just household electricity on during a sunny daytime in summer. To replace it with renewables will, in my estimation, without a huge unexpected breakthrough in battery technology, be far more expensive and possibly not even possible.
Sticking with fossil fuels will not work due to depletion. Nuclear same problem, unless you accept breeder reactors and massive nuclear proliferation.
Given that the policies are never going to be reverted, maybe better questions would be: which of the policies were the ones that mattered, are any of them political feasible, and if none of them are feasible in the US, then where?
See https://www.amazon.com/Where-My-Flying-Car-Memoir-ebook/dp/B07F6SD34R (Where is my Flying Car?, J. Storrs Hall) on this—I find his take on it dead-on.
Hall says growth in energy use per capita flatlined, and that happened mostly because established industries rigged the system to keep themselves on top, and stifled new technologies in a snarl of red tape and regulation. (For the greater good, of course. </snark>)
I think about half of Gordon’s policy RXs are wise, the other half deeply unwise. To the extent public policy has anything to do with growth (a lot, I think) it seems pretty clear US policy circa 1930 (just before the New Deal) worked a lot better than US policy circa 1970.
Whatever pain reverting to public policy circa 1930 would entail seems to be outweighed by the vast increase in per-capita wealth. Several studies have estimated per capita GDP at 3x to 4x what it is today, if the earlier policies had been kept in place.
By coincidence I recently calculated per-capita energy use in the USA in 1970 and now. Basically there is no change. Not surprising considering the huge increase in energy costs at around that time. So I agree with the above post.
When you consider the very strong correlation between energy and GDP—across countries and across time—the stagnation ceases to be a mystery. Computers don’t use very much energy in comparison to things like cars so they are the one exception.
There is a view that renewables technology will be “too cheap to meter”. As far as I can tell this is completely wrong. You need to look at the entire energy system not just household electricity on during a sunny daytime in summer. To replace it with renewables will, in my estimation, without a huge unexpected breakthrough in battery technology, be far more expensive and possibly not even possible.
Sticking with fossil fuels will not work due to depletion. Nuclear same problem, unless you accept breeder reactors and massive nuclear proliferation.
Yes, I’m about a third of the way through Where Is My Flying Car? and it’s amazing. Fascinating and spot-on IMO.
Given that the policies are never going to be reverted, maybe better questions would be: which of the policies were the ones that mattered, are any of them political feasible, and if none of them are feasible in the US, then where?