Beginning with Malthus (1798),īoth ecologists and economists have called attention to theĮssential dependence of economies on natural resourcesĪnd have pointed out that near-exponential growth of That stem directly from the laws of thermodynamics and “We are by no means the first to write about the limits toĮconomic growth and the fundamental energetic constraints The solution? Pump government money into its lifeless corpse… There is still an unwillingness to accept this. The FIRE economy, which had a strong theoretical underpinning, was a bust. The causes are historical and indeed, he identifies them in passing – the idea that the Fed and the banks can finesse recessions and crises, largely through the encouragement of financial assets to make up for declining real assets. The froth has been blown off – that there was a lot of froth is not the fault of those content to accept the blowing. DeLong though of this perhaps his inability to grasp Schumpeterian views would be easier? If you believe that the trend of NGDP has been corrupted by asset inflation such that what is happening now is a return to a sustainable trend rather than a loss of something good. PPE would seem to be the idea position to come to macroeconomics from…Īlthough, perhaps theology and a study of the decline and fall of the Catholic Church might be a more apt perspective. One is a philosophical underpinning, another a scientific (as in Popper, Weber etc.), and a final one a socio-political. I believe there are a couple of pieces missing from this. “Macroeconomics should be thought only through economic history and the history of economic thought”

Thoughtback