j_b

Let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes [video:youtube]Iv0q3cW3x1s

He was likely the first for whom being an actor was all that was needed to become president.

I am optimistic as well that the energy crisis can be solved to our advantage. The earth is a closed system, which doesn't preclude it from exchanging energy with the solar system. But, on human time scales, the earth doesn't exchange significant matter with its surroundings, which combined with population growth nearing carrying capacity poses the sustainability problem that can only be solved through changing consumption. Something similar can be said for ecosystem services that regenerate very slowly relative to human caused processes (i.e. regarding soils, water filtration, climate, etc ..). It is in this context that achieving near steady-state populations on a sustainable path seems desirable.

sure, but in this case I'd have to see how prey-predator interactions tell us that the human economy won't reach some quasi-steady state. Most classical economists have argued that growth was only a transient stage

LOL

I suspect the expression "reproducing like rabbits" has a lot to do with the high frequency and amplitude of fluctuations of that graph.

when was the last time you had to worry about predation in your neighborhood?

are you seriously comparing the human economy to lynx interactions with bunnies?

"ruined conservatism"? was it ever different? conservatism always was for unfettered capitalism. Nothing new, just regression to a former state favored by plutocrats as soon as they could get us there.

how is this applicable to our specie?

steady state economics also means sustainable development, therefore I would think, profit for investors. Innovations of more efficient technologies allow phasing out of older technologies and de-growth in some sectors, while causing growth of others. A steady-state economy would imply a quasi-steady population on an environmentally and socially sustainable path, which doesn't preclude an increase in wealth. An increase in wealth due to getting more out of less through technological progress or that is entirely within environmental and societal constraints is however not as large as wealth acquired through pillaging the environment, but we know the drawbacks of that scheme.

animal populations go through boom and bust because of a) overshoot (exceeding the carrying capacity of ecosystems), which is prevented through sustainability or b) because of natural catastrophic changes that are typically very infrequent on a human time scale.

It's called steady-state economics. The better known pioneers were Georgescu-Roegen and his student Herman Daly. It's possible to find some of the more utopian seminal papers online such as Steady-State Economics and Selections from Energy and Economics Myths, or more recent discussions like Towards a Steady State Economy. There are quite a few other resources available on the web.

it's not all or nothing. We don't have to buy everything and send all of the jobs to places without social safety nets and no environmental constraints.

so? if you want to make a point, you better explain it.

Certainly not, in my universe one doesn't get more public services by paying less.

Employee contracts are sacrosanct in Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings? not for me, but at least I am being consistent. I apply the same rules to CEO's, stockholders, and employees.

Unreasonable is a value-judgment. I'll settle for "exceeds total private sector compensation for comparable positions and skill sets." Or "exceeds the levels required to recruit and retain the necessary staff." we all know that private sector employee compensation isn't sufficient (real wages haven't kept up with increases in necessary expenses for decades implying people can't save for retirement, health care is often inadequate, etc ..) so there is no point in assuming it should be the standard. The goal is to bring private sector employee compensation up, not that of pub employees down despite your unwillingness to acknowledge it (like your cherry picking data, cheater) You still failed to provide any evidence that median public employee compensation was unreasonable to raise a family, provide it with health care, and plan for retirement. and you still fail to account for the need to increase revenues. Your math sucks.

I note there is still no acknowledgment on your part that you cherry-picked that admin assistant2 data. Despite your claims to the contrary, there isn't any evidence that median public employee compensation is unreasonable.

don't worry about it. Before Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, it is now less than half that, now over half of corporations pay no taxes, there is a huge amount of tax evasion through tax heavens, etc ... so there is a way to go before we have to cut people's wages. Well, I guess we have established that you are not the sanctity-of-contract type ... what's left for you?

and who is going to believe that?

JayB - you cherry picked that admin level 2 data ... the fact of the matter is you have no idea how median washington state public employee comp compares with the equivalent in the private sector.

What you are making up is that crisis outcome (not being able to pay employee compensation) is the cause of the budget deficit, when in fact the economic crisis caused by the financial bubble and race to the bottom labor/environmental costs are the causes of revenue shortfall.

I don't see a problem with 60% of the state budget being spent on education, social services, etc ..