Hillary mentioned that renewable energy can not replace all the petroleum energy we consume. That awareness has led to much hand-wringing over the dilemma between accepting the dangers of CO2, radiation, and unsustainable plunder of the planet, or making fundamental economic changes to allow us to live within our means.
Austerity is conservation by poverty. The better way to conserve is to stop wasting as much as possible to make jobs. Our denial of our labor surplus, and our attempts to stimulate consumption lies behind our failure to conceive of any realistic solutions to providing economic security for the world's population.
Accumulation of a durable stock of wealth will allow maintenance of the good life without high consumption, but it would lead to our using less than our full productive capacity.
A robot economy would have no wages all. income would be profits to the owners of resources and owners of robots. That is the world we are heading toward, but the awareness of that is lacking.
There is no reason to feel hopeless about reform, except that very smart people have bought into stupid assumptions about unlimited growth and the goal of economics as making jobs.
Why not just do only the work needed to provide goods and services?
In spite of first appearances, a guaranteed income is necessary to allow reduced consumption without suffering, because it would allow an end to hyper-active economics and an admission that consumption always reduces our stock of wealth.
Barry Brooks