david f, re population, I saw a report yesterday, but cannot find it,
that the world's population grew to 8.5 billion instead of the expected
9 billion. Hopefully this is a straw in the wind.
Population has tracked oil production very very close since 1900.
It will be interesting to see if population reduces with a generation delay.

The "End of Growth" scenario requires that government accepts that
immigration has to cease, that taxation revenue will not increase,
That new hospitals and schools will not be built that the only public
works or infrastructure will only be done if the result is that less
energy will be used.

With a policy like the above any party would be unelectable.
At some time an event that shakes up the people dramatically will be needed.
A loss of fuel and food for a couple of months might do the job.

By doing that and many other similar exercises we may be able to just
hang onto our standard of living to see most of us out.
In the longer run entropy will reduce our standard of living until
we can stabilise at a level that complies with natural resources.

Oil tax: Norway could teach Australia a thing or two about managing wealth
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/oil-tax-norway-could-teach-australia-a-thing-or-two-about-managing-wealth

David,

There are further alternatives to drab and boring than living in a war zone.

As far as tax goes, the Scandinavians and others have learnt that there is a limit to how much you can increase taxes before the returns plateau or decrease. It became clear in the 70s as people became more mobile, that super taxes on the wealthy simply meant they moved, or spent an inordinate amount on tax minimization.

The GST or VAT while being regressive is what is called an efficient tax. This means that it is relatively simple to collect and enforce, and has minimal impact on the economy. The regressive part can be compensated for.

Your version of economics and the causes of war are simplistic and wrong in soooo many ways.

Robert,

That is what Howard was trying to do. Labor could learn from it, but is unlikely to.

SM wrote:

"Your version of economics and the causes of war are simplistic and wrong in soooo many ways."

Translation: SM doesn't agree with it.

David,

What I mean was that anyone familiar with economics or history would disagree with you.

1 Growth can continue without increasing the use of resources, by increasing efficiency and creating jobs that consume less resources.

2 While some wars are fought over resources, for most wars resources is not the primary issue.

SM said:
1 Growth can continue without increasing the use of resources, by
increasing efficiency and creating jobs that consume less resources.

I know that is the conventional view but it is obsolete, everything
has changed the old rules no longer work and economists are trying
to understand why. Very few have woken up.

Jeavons Paradox defined it;
Increasing efficiency results in greater usage.

Unfortunately that is just the way it is.