• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greener pastures in the Nobel Economics prize?

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Economist, here: Paul Romer and William Nordhaus win the economics Nobel

Economists used to think that sustained long-run growth depended on technological progress, which in turn relied on the creation of new ideas. They struggled, however, to explain convincingly how markets generated and propagated those ideas. When Mr Romer came into economics, most prominent models of growth relied on “exogenous” technological progress: it was simply assumed, rather than generated by the models’ equations.
Dissatisfied by this state of affairs, he sought answers by probing the non-rivalrous nature of knowledge: the fact that ideas, once created, can be endlessly exploited. The firms or individuals that come up with new ideas can only ever capture a small share of the benefits arising from them; before long, competitors copy the original brainwave and whittle away innovators’ profits. In Mr Romer’s work, markets are capable of generating new ideas. But the pace at which they are generated, and the way in which they are translated into growth, depends on other factors—such as state support for research and development, or the protection of intellectual property.

The “endogenous” growth models produced by Mr Romer, and by others influenced by him, were once hailed as a critical step towards understanding patterns of economic growth across the globe. They have not quite fulfilled that promise: knowledge may be necessary for growth, but it is clearly not sufficient. But their shortcomings have themselves raised important questions about the stubborn disparities in growth rates. Why are some countries able to exploit existing ideas and grow, while others are not? Should policymakers who want to boost growth focus on policies that support the creation of knowledge or on those that break down barriers to the exploitation of existing knowledge? Or does it make most sense to shift people and resources from the parts of the world that struggle to grow to those that do not? By provoking such questions, Mr Romer’s work identified a rich vein for other researchers to mine.

Mr Nordhaus, for his part, has been a towering figure in the debate about how to respond to one of the biggest challenges that humanity faces. When he was beginning his career in the early 1970s, awareness of the dangers of environmental damage and the threat posed by climate change was just starting to grow. Understanding the economic costs such damage imposes is essential to answering the question of how much society should be willing to pay to avert it.

Mr Nordhaus applied himself to solving this problem. That meant working out the complex interactions between carbon emissions, global temperature and economic growth. He combined mathematical descriptions of both climate and economic activity into “integrated assessment models”. This allowed him to project how different trajectories for the world’s carbon emissions would produce different global temperatures. That, in turn, allowed him to estimate the likely costs of these different scenarios—and thus what level of reduction in emissions would be economically optimal. He was the first to suggest that warming should be limited to no more than 2°C higher than the world’s pre-industrial temperature. Models like his have become the linchpin of most analysis of the cost of climate change.


Like lotsa things that change in this Brave New World of the Internet Economy, so do economic theories/notions.

Lesson to be learned: Keep an open mind - what you learned today could be no longer appropriate to economic change tomorrow.

Not all academic pastures worth brouting stay fully green over time ...
 
From the Economist, here: Paul Romer and William Nordhaus win the economics Nobel



Like lotsa things that change in this Brave New World of the Internet Economy, so do economic theories/notions.

Lesson to be learned: Keep an open mind - what you learned today could be no longer appropriate to economic change tomorrow.

Not all academic pastures worth brouting stay fully green over time ...

Given the wreckage that is the global economy and as well that the braintrust clearly has little idea what is going on I will take all guesses at the cost of climate change with a fist full of salt.

The economists cant manage much much easier stuff, I am supposed to believe that these complex guesses hold value?

We'll See.
 
Given the wreckage that is the global economy and as well that the braintrust clearly has little idea what is going on I will take all guesses at the cost of climate change with a fist full of salt.

The economists cant manage much much easier stuff, I am supposed to believe that these complex guesses hold value?

We'll See.

Oh, indeed, we are seeing it already.

Unless of course one decides to be pertinently blind to that fact.

Just why in heaven's name did 190 countries sign the Paris Agreement including the US? They were all bonkers ... ?
 
Oh, indeed, we are seeing it already.

Unless of course one decides to be pertinently blind to that fact.

Just why in heaven's name did 190 countries sign the Paris Agreement including the US? They were all bonkers ... ?

Yes they were as none of them had any intention of holding it up nor where they actually interested.
the paris agreement like koyoto wasn't worth the paper it was written on and well the US unsigned it for good reason.

It was nothing more than a massive wealth transfer to other countries. basically exporting US wealth.
 
Yes they were as none of them had any intention of holding it up nor where they actually interested.
the paris agreement like koyoto wasn't worth the paper it was written on and well the US unsigned it for good reason.

It was nothing more than a massive wealth transfer to other countries. basically exporting US wealth.

Some nerds must absolutely have the last word in a Debate Forum.

You've had yours. Feel better now ... ?

PS: Exchanging with you is worthless. I've put you on Ignore.
 
Some nerds must absolutely have the last word in a Debate Forum.

You've had yours. Feel better now ... ?

PS: Exchanging with you is worthless. I've put you on Ignore.
you obviously didn't read the paris accord very well, but that is typical.

Compliance with the Paris Agreement globally has been nothing short of dismal. In fact, most nations will soon fail to meet their agreement-defined deadlines.

Without enforcement, however, the agreement and any promises made by countries are meaningless. This is not a new revelation. While the Paris talks were first occurring in 2015, former NASA scientist and prominent climate activist James Hansen called the talks “a fraud,” contending: “There is no action, just promises.”

No one is meeting the so called paris accord requirements.

why? their economies are growing developed countries are seeing their economies grow and with that growth comes the need for more energy.
that means more emissions.

yes you can't deal with facts and it is why your arguments are so hollow every time you post and they just get destroyed.
so it is easier to just ignore everyone that blows your arguments out of the water.

The paris accord was a disaster of a plan and everyone now knows it and no one had any intention of upholding it.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...ined-in-paris-climate-agreement-two-years-ago

Because the Paris agreement does not legally force countries to cut emissions, world leaders in Poland will have to rely on political and moral persuasion to push for more action.
 
No one is meeting the so called paris accord requirements.

And nobody (but you evidently) expected them to do so!

Climate Change is happening right under your feet, and you go off on some banal-hype to diminish the accords.

Really kinda stoopid given the evidence that is abundant including the very high temperatures this past summer.

Where do you live? North or South Pole ... ?
 
And nobody (but you evidently) expected them to do so!

Climate Change is happening right under your feet, and you go off on some banal-hype to diminish the accords.
Really kinda stoopid given the evidence that is abundant including the very high temperatures this past summer.
Where do you live? North or South Pole ... ?

Your the one complaining about it.
dude the climate is supposed to change. I would be hugely worried if it didn't change.
the climate has been changing for thousands and thousands of years.

We went from lush forests in alaska to glaciers.

There is the possibility that the earth goes back to a more tropical state that it was before the ice age.
there is nothing that says that it can't and there is nothing that says that it is wrong for it to do so.

PS weather is not climate remember?
 
Back
Top Bottom