by threadbear » Sun 24 Aug 2008, 00:28:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kdenninger', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('idiom', 'S')o in the event of a prolonged contraction how does the US avoid defaulting on its debt or entitlement or both?
Is there a tidy way to transition to a not-growth assuming economic system?
Oh no, its going to be quite messy.
But there's a huge difference between "messy" and "Mad Max".
Most of the POers are in the "Mad Max" camp in one form or another. I strenuously disagree with that assessment.
As for entitlements, they're finished. Not all at once, but with certainty, yes. That which can't be done won't be done.
The 900lb Gorilla is Medicare; we simply have to have an honest debate in America on sustainable health care paradigms, and what we have now isn't it. What we had in the 50s and 60s was, but that devolves down into "ordinary care is cheap and you buy it with money, extraordinary care is expensive and if you can't pay you don't get it. Help comes in the form of private charity (e.g. The Shriners)."
Economic growth is not necessarily dead. Neither is energy supply growth. There's absolutely nothing preventing us from building a mixture of breeder and pebble-bed reactors which are self-sustaining in their fuel requirements, other than the will to do so (there are NO technical or operational impediments to constructing as many of those as we have the will to put online), and with lots of high-quality energy (electricity) virtually anything else can be accomplished in the energy environment. Get all of our current electrical generation off fossil fuels and on nuclear.
Turning coal into liquid fuel is a problem that was technically solved by Germany during the war. We have plenty of transition fuel while we get large-scale aquaculture online to produce short-cycle liquid hydrocarbon fuels (e.g. biodiesel from aquaculture.) The latter is a ~20 year problem to get both developed and into large-scale production, but we have the ability to get there with what we have now.
Yes, there is a cost issue to both the interim and ultimately, but is this necessarily bad? Why not a hybrid compression-ignition / battery vehicle that can serve commuting on a plug basis and charge overnight, but has a compression ignition flex-fuel engine (runs on anything from gasoline to diesel and all in between, including kerosene and Jet-A, along with biodiesel, in any blend) to prevent the problem of running out of power? The CI engine is comparatively expensive to operate but if sized small will be very efficient and provides cross-country capability, while remaining "off" for short-run and commuter driving.
One key is getting rid of spark-ignition engines in OTR vehicles, as that also paves the way for short-cycle sustainable fuel products. They are horribly inefficient at low and moderate power operation due to throttling losses; a diesel beats them on that basis by 20-30%, and that's an instantaneous reduction in consumption. Fuel oil also has more BTUs in it than does gasoline per gallon which contributes to even more efficiency per gallon, but not necessarily per unit of energy input. There is nothing, once again, technically preventing flex-fuel CI engines; in fact, the military solved THAT problem in the 1960s and for some time had trucks that would run on any mixture of gasoline, jet, kerosene and #2.
It's possible that the biggest entitlement programs like the military and agricultural subsidies will be sharply reduced, and new ones will evolve. A very basic form of medical care, a self funding one, initiated by the feds might be one of them.