How original: more economic growth, the solution to everything; never mind that economic growth requires material growth--population growth or glut. The planet and its resources meanwhile cannot grow.
Are all economists from the planet Ceteris Paribus?

"How our political leaders respond to this challenge of downward mobility will define the future of our Republic."

In case you haven't noticed, it's the politicians who are causing it.

The author's dream that the people can be made richer by the state taking from A and giving to B, not forgetting to gouge a (big) slice for itself, is what caused the problem he's trying to solve with more of the same.

The left are perpetually caught in cleft stick, on the one hand coveting the wealth that capitalism brings, on the other hand they can't bring themselves to stop hating human freedom, and calling for policies of capital destructionism, which is all the author has done. He simple ignores the costs to be sacrificed for his proposals, and dreams that that he can make society richer by forced distributions.

Squeers
And your specific policy alternative is what?

Since, according to you, "the planet" can't support economic growth, and since you have no doubt had more than your fair share of economic growth already, being
a) Australian
b) older than the world's average, and
c) having 6 kids,
are you proposing to stop consuming the fruits of the productive activity you despise and condemn?

No? Thought not. Just more marxoid hypocrisy from the woolly-brain squarkers.

Jardine, not that it bothers me, but why the personal insults?

Do you actually believe to know the perfect answers in this complex world?

I am sure GY and OLO would appreciate your fool proof commentary or galaxy events, so please give us an essay about how the perfect society would be achieved, or give us an example of it ever being achieved in your version of events?

Something tells me you are also full of bs, but you love slagging off that you know best.

I would love to meet you in person. What is your real name and profession, so we can have a fair dinkum debate face to face

I am with Chris Lewis and Squeers on this one. Jardine needs to get with reality.
The U.S. and Australia have got to the present state because people have become too acquisitive. As a consequence we are using up our resources at an unsustainable rate. We expect the state to provide and we have overlooked that in the end we all should be paying for it. Governments of both persuasions are both trying to reduce taxes. The end result of this will be continual running down of our infrastructure and increasingly large budget deficits.

The balloon has burst. There is no way we are going to claw our was back to the unsustainable days of the pre GFC era. Just be thankful that for a while we had it good. From now on we are entering the winter of our discontent.

With jardine, who I do hope now offers an essay to match his confidence, I can't believe he gets away with constant bagging of individuals.

Like I said, does not bother me, but his collective summary of any comment associated with govt is very, very silly.

Also, a commitment to an ideal society means jackshit. One needs to explain how such an ideal could be achieved in line with realities.

As most of us will admit, it is very hard.

Except of course, Jardine, OLO's masterful critic.

Jardine declare your real name and produce a piece for OLO of how Aust can be improved. I will respond, and the readers can judge both versions.

Apropos the author's title, he should look up his terms. The middle class isn't turning proletariat (mores the pity), but lumpenproletariat.

“the gradual descent of the middle class into proletarian status”. The ghost of Marx walks again!

The author has made a valuable contribution here in stating our problem.
The solution offered however is nonsensical but it is the best current economic thinking offers. In other words, nothing.

The pre GFC,period was not sustainable either.
The economy has been on borrowed time since the 1980s
And now that the credit is maxed out, it is back to the future.

The question economist need to answer requires them to flip their economic understanding from a system which assumes scarcity to a system which produces excess.

That is now beyond our ken, this is what happens when you turn university education into and indoctrination program.

Yes the author has highlighted the problem quite correctly, but fails to see the true reason. The problem is creeping socialism & green stupidity.

As long as they have a radical ratbag greenie socialist in the white house, & a ratbag EPA, [Environmental Protection Agency] they are headed for the scrap heap.

You can't have government forcing up the cost of energy, without ripping that cost out of the economy many times over. You can't have such cronyism & corruption of the countries wealth generation, without trampling all over the living standards of the people.

When you have such a huge percentage of the population who vote, rather than work for a living, you are heading for the bottom of the pile. The age of entitlement, & ratbags in charge is killing any country where it has taken hold, & only collapse is likely to correct it.

Squeers thinks that we are at the limits of growth.With new technology pollution and energy problems can be over come.Squeers is part of the can't do generation which keeps the masses poor.

Firstly we have to reform the banking system.Private banks both commercial and central should not be allowed to create money as debt they do not have.This debt money creation system is the cause of all the poverty and wars on the planet.

If 87 of our richest billionaires have more wealth than the planet's 3500 billion,something is seriously wrong.The power of the few on this planet is a dangerous recipe for self destruction.They control our Govts,most of energy and resources on the planet.

Russia,China,Iran Syria, Venezuela and North Korea and the last few countries that ave not been fully conquered by their debt money creation system.

In 1955 GMH paid their workers and average of $37 per hr in today's money.Walmart today pays it's workers an average of $8.80 US per hr .Technology and robotics have made these companies far more efficient but still the profits are not high enough.

If you don't pay people enough to consume the products they produce, then your economy spirals downwards.

Bill Still in this Doco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI suggested that a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire was Caesar removing all the cheap bronze money form the economy and replacing it with his gold coins.It concentrated all wealth in a few hands and their economy could not function.Sound familiar ?

Aryay:
"Squeers thinks that we are at the limits of growth.With new technology pollution and energy problems can be over come.Squeers is part of the can't do generation which keeps the masses poor".

I've said nothing of the kind.

I don't think we're anywhere near the limits of growth, with half the world still to undergo transformation, as well as economic growth increasingly stemming from virtual commodities and other insubstantial innovations. Despite the technological decline, or plateauing in concomitant material growth, however, it remains the case that economic growth requires growth in demand, which has finally to be multiplied and cultivated.
There is a serious entropic effect apropos accessible energy, but that aside I dare say the planet will indulge the human juggernaut for some time to come. What I would say is we've passed the tipping point whereby our situation is retrievable in acceptably humanist terms; short of a devastating famine and overall collapse.
In my view new technology cannot help us since it is dependent on the same growth mechanism for its innovation, and despite new efficiencies contributes to the problem, rather than alleviating it.
In practice, new technology does not reduce the footprint, but facilitates greater consumption. In a world addicted to economic growth the net effect of cleaner/more efficient technology is not equilibrium, but further expansion unto physical limits--which we can of course never actually reach. Unsustainable human proliferation is not a natural phenomenon, it's economic.
As for "keeping the masses poor": the masses are not a stable quantity, waiting to be rescued, but a dynamic and emergent phenomenon symbiotically dependent on growth, just as economic growth nurtures its dependency on the accumulating masses.

Chris

Unlike you, I understand that the socialists are talking about killing large numbers of real human beings. The fact they don’t understand the economic consequences of their own policies is no excuse, because as we have seen in here many times, they knowingly and deliberately choose illogic and circularity, even after it’s pointed out to them. Every time I join issue with them, they are calling for my freedom to be violated by actual physical force and threats – that’s why I’m joining issue! Then when I call them out for being totalitarians and fascists, all of a sudden human feelings matter after all – their own! Squeers is fresh from his argument comprising nothing but personal insult and name-calling: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16063&page=0
Unlike Squeers, my substantive argument is stand-alone; it never *relies on* personal insult, but *disproves* arguments calling for the State to attack or threaten me to obey their intolerance. Insults are the least of what they deserve - and calling them totalitarian fascists is mere description anyway!

Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know what values peaceable people should live by; to have a Gods-eye view or a Grand Plan by which everyone is to be moulded into shape to serve my ends. I recognise that it’s morally evil, and that your claims to know how to achieve it, even in your own terms, are completely fake.

Unlike you, I actually care whether what I’m saying is true or not. I don’t just circularly persist in a scheme for violating other people, even after it’s been pointed out that it doesn’t make sense. For example you own Utopia is to claim an elusive “balance” between coercive and consensual measures. But when you are asked how anyone, whose freedom would be adversely affected, could know by what principle that balance is to be determined, you are completely at a loss to say what it is. In other words, you’re talking bullsh!t as a pretext for violating the liberty and property of others, and then when you’re called out on it, the conversation turns to hurt feelings – the fascists’!

like I said, apply your logic to what Aust should do since govt is the culprit, and we are mere socialists or commos who know nothing.

Go on, have a go, and disclose your real name. I am eagre to learn about how useless we all are, and why we should all listen to you.

I think there would be a lot of others, who have also worked in govt or academia, that would like to learn from your supposed wisdom

me get upset from you. Dream on.

come on, you and your crap about fascists and dreams of living in a world of liberty. It is not going to happen, at least for a long time. Just look at the rise of China and the arrogance of Russia, govt dominated nations.

I just hope we liberal democracies can rise to the challenge.

Libertarianism, which obviously gives you something to do and rave on about, is about as problem solving as religion. It is an ideal that can never take account of realities that complicate international society's best intentions.

Anyway like I said, disclose your real name and contribute articles to OLO to help us supposed govt parasites.

It is always a lot easier to be an armchair critic, and I hoping you have a bit of spine.

Jardine
You desperately need to catch up on the last 50 years
Socialists killing people - indeed

Read something Christ read anything

Perhaps start with the confessions of an economic hit man

What has been happening in the US is a symptom of the decline that can
be seen in other parts of the US infrastructure & economy.
Road & bridge repair declining, roads being turned back to gravel etc.
There is even a website for closed or never opened shopping malls.

We are starting to see some signs of the same troublesome effects.
Governments are in a monetary squeeze.
It is a function of very low growth rates. The famous tight oil finds
that we all get drip fed with by the uncritical media and politicians
famous phrase, "No problem in the foreseeable future".

There is about until 2017 that we will stumble on with declining
services and cutbacks in government expenditure.
Then further rises in energy costs will accelerate the decline for all countries.
The end of growth.

Welcome to the Post Peak Oil World !