jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131“I think the focus of the day was a sustainable economy. That’s probably easier to define than sustainability”
It might be easier – but given the inability to form judgments regarding future technology, or the incentives to help drive technological change, it still seems like a difficult issue to define substantively. And even if we could, it is hard to know whether that defined outcome is even the ex-ante optimal outcome.
“From a policy perspective they are talking the right language at the moment”
I agree, which is why I was relatively supportive in this post.
“I was hoping for more on monetary policy but that didn’t get too much airing. I know we have differing views there so I won’t bang on about it here.”
I was glad that we didn’t hear more on monetary policy per see – as I felt that it wasn’t really an objective area for debate following the straw man (and wrong) version of economics that had been promoted earlier.
I also don’t see how cyclical policy (monetary policy) is relevant to a structural issue (sustainability) – fiscal policy is the way to go in these cases.
And it is good our views differ – it tends to be the things everyone agrees upon where policy errors are the greatest 😉
]]>I think the focus of the day was a sustainable economy. That’s probably easier to define than sustainability. I think the Greens have struggled with their underlying message for years, namely that we should internalize extermnalities. Sure there is a philosophical “green” view which focuses on living within our bioshperical limits but from a policy perspective they are talking the right language at the moment.
If they can carry that on then they will pull in more votes for sure.
I was hoping for more on monetary policy but that didn’t get too much airing. I know we have differing views there so I won’t bang on about it here.
I’m looking forward to more debate around these issues.
]]>“Do you think it possible to separate politics from philosophy from economic policy?”
No. As a policy involves a conclusion, and you can’t reach a conclusion without making value judgments.
“yet you leave a lot of room open here for voting Greens?”
I think the conditions I place on voting Greens here are still quite high given the “organisational slight” they put on policy – but if they turn and meet these conditions, then I would be keen to.
At the moment, all the parties appear to have quite a central planning bent – as they all want to make it sound like they can make things magically happen. This disappoints me. At the present time I wouldn’t vote for any of them.
]]>You’ve said constantly that you don’t like central planning – and I took that to mean Statism – yet you leave a lot of room open here for voting Greens? How do you reconcile that contradiction?
]]>