Is Benjamin Say still the reference in economic equations? Are natural ressources still counted as infinite?
Am i wrong thinking that growth = production increase = energy increase (or energy optimization)? So if the energy stop increasing, growth will only depends on energy optimization, right?
Do we have economical theories that work without growth? I thought post-keynesian theory had a better understanding of the human factor than classical, but my readings this past month were less than conclusive concerning a world with no growth at all. Classicals too seems to think that good economy policies will create growth. Do other model exists? Any reference, books? And i'm not talking about a FT article, i'm talking about models or mathematical formulas (i'm not saying i got a bachelor degree in economics in a month, but i am ready to read more than just vulgarization and textbooks)(although tbh a textbook would be the best)
Sorry for this somewhat political question, i know people like technical ones better but i don't find what i'm seeking and thought i should ask for help.
So far that approximation has held up; we run out of resource X, we substitute Y and then people mostly forget about X. For all we know people will learn to mine asteroids many of which are richer in tarry gunk than Saudi Arabia.
I like Howard Odum's work on environmental accounting but in many ways that is a dead end. He developed a scheme that considers the quality of energy as opposed to quantity. "Emergy" is embedded energy traced back to sunlight, even the energy it takes to make fresh water. Energy in the form of plants, liquid fuels, and electricity all have a emergy/energy ratio (transformity) of 200,000.
What makes it a dead end is that uncertainties interact with ideology. David Pimentel would look through the literature and find the most pessimistic numbers, industry boosters find the most. When your formula looks like the Drake equation those factors really make a huge difference.