>On that point definitely, but Aarons was totally off base and clueless on
>the issue of the steady state economy and was flat out lying when he stated
>that a steady state economy would cut US living standards in half. Hell, a
>steady state economy is really an increasing returns economy with regard to
>energy productivity and technological innovation. Bello was falling asleep
>in right in front of me he was so exhausted and bored with the caliber of
>the debate...god what a day...
A steady-state capitalist economy is pretty hard to imagine, and Aarons wasn't about to imagine anything beyond capitalism. So he was right from his point of view. If I remember right, he was also responding to a Malthusian questioner, who wanted no economic growth, and Aarons was simply doing the math of 0 GDP growth plus >0 pop growth = declining per capita income. That too is irrefutable if you think capitalism eternal.
Doug