Any regulation or law the government comes up with, requires unproductive time to comply with. Look at the income tax code. it is so massively complicated, an entire industry (tax preparers) exists just to comply with it. Tax preparers produce absolutely nothing. Thousands and thousands of people that make a living from producing nothing. No regulation can ever stimulate the economy. Regulations only get in the way.

Now hopefully I was not to far off topic and I am ready to receive whatever criticism may come my way.

Instead, government hides its head, and utilities focus on dividends rather than infrastructure.

Whether raxpayers should assist in burying the grid is the kind of question that deserves national attention – not whether or not Obama smokes or was born in Kenya.

Obviously there are other issues like global warming, which will certainly be a huge challenge for all of humanity in the coming decades. It will be expensive, but ultimately I don’t think remediating global warming and dealing with the warming and consequences we’ve already “locked in” will put a halt to growth either. I’d also add that as urbanization marches forward in developing nations we’re starting to see the population-growth-slowing effects that city life brings. World population growth should halt and even reverse this century, so if we can continue to grow economies it could result in a higher standard of living for everyone–at least if we can maintain a progressive tax structure and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth.

I guess I’m an optimist despite the looming challenges of this century…

It’s been 30 years since I took Econ 101 as my first and last Econ course, but I guess something stuck — even if I can’t remember that’s where I got it from.

And yes, all the convoluted arguments about second order effects to try and avoid the obvious, like cutting jobs is unlikely to result in higher employment, is certainly baffling.

P.S. I like my freshwater for sailing.

Indeed.
And isn’t it passing strange that the very same pols (& their media mouthpieces) who castigate the CBO for making “static” projections re: tax-cuts (among other issues)– ie, for not taking into account that changes in taxation will cause changes in behaviors and outcomes — should utterly ignore that self-same sacred principle when it comes to projections of the impacts of gummint spending, esp cuts therein?
Why, if one didn’t know better, one might suspect such people were engaging in, at best, hypocrisy, and at worst, deliberate deceit!

I see that a lot of progressive economists talk about policies that are meant to “get growth going” – and I’d agree with those policies in principle, if I weren’t convinced, like Heinberg, that we’re hitting the ceiling – infinite growth isn’t possible in a world with finite resources.

Thoughts?