What do you think?
Rate this book
Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution
Politicians, economists, and Wall Street would have us believe that limitless economic expansion is the Holy Grail, and that there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment. Supply Shock debunks these widely accepted myths and demonstrates that we are in fact navigating the end of the era of economic growth, and that the only sustainable alternative is the development of a steady state economy. Starting with a refreshingly accessible, comprehensive critique of economic growth, the author engages readers in an enormous topic that affects everyone in every country. Publishers Weekly favorably compared Brian Czech to Carl Sagan for popularizing their difficult subjects; Supply Shock shows why. Czech presents a compelling alternative to growth based on keen scientific, economic, and political insights
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
17 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 11, 2014
It should probably be made clear ahead of time that I support steady-state economics, and am generally anti-growth and anti-big business. Despite my support for the cause promoted by Czech and others like Herman Daly, however, I found this book incredibly flawed in its presentation of the need for economic reform.
This is not to say that Supply Shock is a total loss. There are some great aspects to this book. The history of economics that Czech provides for everyone who ISN’T an econ major is fantastic. For someone like me, who has only scratched the surface of economic theory, it includes definitions for terms and concepts that I’ve read in many articles but have never been able to properly articulate (like the distinction between GDP and GNP and the significance of this difference).
Czech’s “Trophic theory of money” in particular is informative and substantive. His explanations of this theory lay out a persuasive (and, dare I say, irrefutable) base from which steady-state ideas arise. This and his denunciations of technology as the solution to everything are weapons any stead statesperson should have in their arsenal when debating economic reform.
That all being said, the benefits of the text are hamstrung by several factors. For one, Czech is more than a little belligerent, and launches into ad hominem attacks throughout the book that only serve to chip away at any ethos his work experience has earned him. It’s hard to support a guy who comes off like a snarky jerk.
More problematic is the book’s apparent confusion over who its audience is. There are points where Czech info dumps a host of statistics without explaining what the implications of those numbers are; he assumes the reader will already know how the individual person’s life will be affected if carbon levels reach a certain percentage or if shellfish numbers drop below a certain number. Most likely, people have a vague idea of the dangers of this, but can’t conjure up the linear schemata that would clarify what this would mean for the each of us. In other places (like in distinguishing GDP/GNP, comparative advantage, etc) he goes into great detail as if the reader knows absolutely nothing. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if he didn’t spend pages flogging one obvious metaphor, only to leave key points of his argument (like the value of land taxes) exposed to attack.
And perhaps most egregious of the book’s problems is Czech’s apparent lack of understanding of how ACTUAL people live. His stance on immigration and reproductive rights especially leave a bad taste in the mouth. His pitiful attempt to justify his recommendations with some “hard times call for hard choices” line leaves out, for example, the reality that most pregnancies—wanted or not—are still unplanned. And his closing off national borders, no matter what logic he throws at the reader, smacks of a gated community solution to the world.
One of the only ways in which a steady-state economy can work in our full and globalized world is to think in terms of a global population that doesn’t leave some to fend for themselves. His economic reforms require a return to community that’s been lost in a century that’s moved to outsourcing. But thinking in terms of us/them is what has led to the exploitation of developing nations in the first place, and just hoping those dirty immigrants will fix their own problems if they are forced back into their home countries relies on so many fallacies that I can’t begin to count.
But I’ll get off my soap box now. In the end, Czech is a better historian than he is an activist. He supplies a very clear explanation for HOW we came to be so growth-oriented. But when he tries to switch to persuasion mode, his baser instincts and fundamental misreading of how most people live undercut any of his rational and valid points. Even as someone who is part of his ideological choir, I wasn’t convinced by this book, so this it isn’t going to sway anyone who isn’t already receptive to alternate economic models.
If you are not familiar with steady-state economics, I would recommend starting with Daly, whose Beyond Growth is both more approachable and less uneven in its explanations.
This is not to say that Supply Shock is a total loss. There are some great aspects to this book. The history of economics that Czech provides for everyone who ISN’T an econ major is fantastic. For someone like me, who has only scratched the surface of economic theory, it includes definitions for terms and concepts that I’ve read in many articles but have never been able to properly articulate (like the distinction between GDP and GNP and the significance of this difference).
Czech’s “Trophic theory of money” in particular is informative and substantive. His explanations of this theory lay out a persuasive (and, dare I say, irrefutable) base from which steady-state ideas arise. This and his denunciations of technology as the solution to everything are weapons any stead statesperson should have in their arsenal when debating economic reform.
That all being said, the benefits of the text are hamstrung by several factors. For one, Czech is more than a little belligerent, and launches into ad hominem attacks throughout the book that only serve to chip away at any ethos his work experience has earned him. It’s hard to support a guy who comes off like a snarky jerk.
More problematic is the book’s apparent confusion over who its audience is. There are points where Czech info dumps a host of statistics without explaining what the implications of those numbers are; he assumes the reader will already know how the individual person’s life will be affected if carbon levels reach a certain percentage or if shellfish numbers drop below a certain number. Most likely, people have a vague idea of the dangers of this, but can’t conjure up the linear schemata that would clarify what this would mean for the each of us. In other places (like in distinguishing GDP/GNP, comparative advantage, etc) he goes into great detail as if the reader knows absolutely nothing. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if he didn’t spend pages flogging one obvious metaphor, only to leave key points of his argument (like the value of land taxes) exposed to attack.
And perhaps most egregious of the book’s problems is Czech’s apparent lack of understanding of how ACTUAL people live. His stance on immigration and reproductive rights especially leave a bad taste in the mouth. His pitiful attempt to justify his recommendations with some “hard times call for hard choices” line leaves out, for example, the reality that most pregnancies—wanted or not—are still unplanned. And his closing off national borders, no matter what logic he throws at the reader, smacks of a gated community solution to the world.
One of the only ways in which a steady-state economy can work in our full and globalized world is to think in terms of a global population that doesn’t leave some to fend for themselves. His economic reforms require a return to community that’s been lost in a century that’s moved to outsourcing. But thinking in terms of us/them is what has led to the exploitation of developing nations in the first place, and just hoping those dirty immigrants will fix their own problems if they are forced back into their home countries relies on so many fallacies that I can’t begin to count.
But I’ll get off my soap box now. In the end, Czech is a better historian than he is an activist. He supplies a very clear explanation for HOW we came to be so growth-oriented. But when he tries to switch to persuasion mode, his baser instincts and fundamental misreading of how most people live undercut any of his rational and valid points. Even as someone who is part of his ideological choir, I wasn’t convinced by this book, so this it isn’t going to sway anyone who isn’t already receptive to alternate economic models.
If you are not familiar with steady-state economics, I would recommend starting with Daly, whose Beyond Growth is both more approachable and less uneven in its explanations.
March 31, 2015
This is an important and radical approach to economics; its primary failing is that it isn’t radical enough.
The most interesting part of this book was the discussion of the history of economics, which initially I expected to be the driest part. It’s quite interesting that the modern “ecological economics” movement is actually firmly based in the origins of economic theory, which saw land as the source of economic value — or at least a key source. Today, we take “land,” as a stand-in for all natural resources, for granted. Neo-classical economics, which is totally dominant in universities and in much economic thought, treats the natural world essentially as an extension of the human economy, rather than vice versa.
Also interesting was his idea of “trophic levels in the economy.” I don’t know if this is original with Czech, but it makes a lot of sense. Each part of the economy relies on some other parts, or have parts of the economy which rely on them. When you get to the basic trophic level, you have agriculture, mining, and other industries producing basic raw materials; above that, you have manufacturing, then you have finance, education, and all the rest which really presuppose the lower trophic levels.
In the last two chapters, there is discussion of how to achieve the steady state solution. He wants to do two things: create a moral and social movement that castigates consumption, based roughly on the anti-smoking movement, which transformed the image of smoking from a “cool” habit to something which is both self-destructive and, given the dangers of second-hand smoke, selfish as well. “Hummer haters” would, hopefully, gain the ascendancy.
Second, we need policy changes of a quite radical nature. A lot of these have been discussed elsewhere, but it was good to see Czech’s summary and discussion. These include cap-and-trade policies on basic resources, including most obviously fossil fuels, but also including fisheries, timber, minerals, and groundwater (p. 297). He spends several pages discussing strategies for encouraging population stabilization, although he does not quantify any targets. He wants to cap the maximum income at perhaps 15 times the minimum income, reform the banking system, move towards full employment, reduce the work week, and change the way we keep national accounts. Our concept of GDP lumps good and bad things together; cancer may increase GDP, whereas what we really want is increased health.
All right, what is missing here? I would mention specifically the following.
1. No mention of diet or any real discussion of agriculture. We need to go vegan for the planet, but there’s no mention of this at all. Over 90% of the mammalian biomass of the planet is humans, their livestock, and their pets. Without near-universal veganism, we will not be able to deal with climate change or the problem of mass extinctions.
2. The proposals for population reduction and an end to consumerism generally are much too timid. It is likely that we will need to reduce human population dramatically, perhaps to ½ billion to 3 billion people, and that’s after assuming that we go vegan and dramatically reduce our consumption, which is difficult enough.
3. There’s no real discussion of the possibility of the collapse of civilization or the possible ways of achieving a transition to a steady-state economy. Getting to a steady-state solution is going to be a lot more problematic than just suddenly stopping economic growth, as if we can just keep our population at 7 billion and continue eating meat and driving cars (as long as they are electric cars).
Czech’s proposals really are quite radical, so I have no problems recommending this book. The general approach of creating a new moral movement of sustainability is a good one. In fact, if you took his policy recommendations at the ending seriously, they would imply exactly some of the things I am suggesting — a vegan diet, reducing population to approach pre-industrial levels, and a vigorous exploration of the implications of political collapse. To deal with the environmental crisis, his proposals are a good place to start but need to be followed logically to their radical conclusion.
The most interesting part of this book was the discussion of the history of economics, which initially I expected to be the driest part. It’s quite interesting that the modern “ecological economics” movement is actually firmly based in the origins of economic theory, which saw land as the source of economic value — or at least a key source. Today, we take “land,” as a stand-in for all natural resources, for granted. Neo-classical economics, which is totally dominant in universities and in much economic thought, treats the natural world essentially as an extension of the human economy, rather than vice versa.
Also interesting was his idea of “trophic levels in the economy.” I don’t know if this is original with Czech, but it makes a lot of sense. Each part of the economy relies on some other parts, or have parts of the economy which rely on them. When you get to the basic trophic level, you have agriculture, mining, and other industries producing basic raw materials; above that, you have manufacturing, then you have finance, education, and all the rest which really presuppose the lower trophic levels.
In the last two chapters, there is discussion of how to achieve the steady state solution. He wants to do two things: create a moral and social movement that castigates consumption, based roughly on the anti-smoking movement, which transformed the image of smoking from a “cool” habit to something which is both self-destructive and, given the dangers of second-hand smoke, selfish as well. “Hummer haters” would, hopefully, gain the ascendancy.
Second, we need policy changes of a quite radical nature. A lot of these have been discussed elsewhere, but it was good to see Czech’s summary and discussion. These include cap-and-trade policies on basic resources, including most obviously fossil fuels, but also including fisheries, timber, minerals, and groundwater (p. 297). He spends several pages discussing strategies for encouraging population stabilization, although he does not quantify any targets. He wants to cap the maximum income at perhaps 15 times the minimum income, reform the banking system, move towards full employment, reduce the work week, and change the way we keep national accounts. Our concept of GDP lumps good and bad things together; cancer may increase GDP, whereas what we really want is increased health.
All right, what is missing here? I would mention specifically the following.
1. No mention of diet or any real discussion of agriculture. We need to go vegan for the planet, but there’s no mention of this at all. Over 90% of the mammalian biomass of the planet is humans, their livestock, and their pets. Without near-universal veganism, we will not be able to deal with climate change or the problem of mass extinctions.
2. The proposals for population reduction and an end to consumerism generally are much too timid. It is likely that we will need to reduce human population dramatically, perhaps to ½ billion to 3 billion people, and that’s after assuming that we go vegan and dramatically reduce our consumption, which is difficult enough.
3. There’s no real discussion of the possibility of the collapse of civilization or the possible ways of achieving a transition to a steady-state economy. Getting to a steady-state solution is going to be a lot more problematic than just suddenly stopping economic growth, as if we can just keep our population at 7 billion and continue eating meat and driving cars (as long as they are electric cars).
Czech’s proposals really are quite radical, so I have no problems recommending this book. The general approach of creating a new moral movement of sustainability is a good one. In fact, if you took his policy recommendations at the ending seriously, they would imply exactly some of the things I am suggesting — a vegan diet, reducing population to approach pre-industrial levels, and a vigorous exploration of the implications of political collapse. To deal with the environmental crisis, his proposals are a good place to start but need to be followed logically to their radical conclusion.
July 20, 2014
I have never formally studied economics, and like most others who grew up in the "most capitalistic of all capitalist places", Hong Kong, I have always taken economic growth for granted. Besides, mainstream economists, Left or Right, all seem to treat economic growth as essential as the air we breathe and the water we drink. However, from a few years back I started wondering about whether it is actually necessary or even possible for economies to grow indefinitely. I was interested in answering 2 questions when I decided to read this book: (1) why and how all those economists, who are obviously all very smart and intelligent (or "Very Serious People", to use Krugman's famous term), come to believe that perpetual growth is possible? (2) How would an economy without growth look like and how can that be feasible?
For the first question, I am quite satisfied with what I found in this book. It takes a layman like myself through easy-to-understand economic history, from Quesnay to Smith, Marx to Keynes. And of course the lesser known Henry George, whose proposed land tax caused the backslash that eventually corrupted economics and took the only limiting factor (land) out of the growth theory. And that technology innovations that are supposed to 'rain down from heaven' will then allow economies to grow forever.
For the answers I got to my first question, I would give this book 4 stars. It is the second part that is a bit underwhelming. Most of his proposals are good ideas, but I have to agree with one of the other reviewers who gave the book 2 stars: the proposals do not really take into account the people who actually live an everyday life in the economies.
Let us not forget that around the same time when classical economics was born and Industrial Revolution started, other modern concepts also took form: democracy and social mobility. Having living in Japan for 15 years, it provided me with a first-hand experience with a society without a growing economy for a significant period of time. The biggest hurdle, IMHO, in selling a steady-state economy to the electorate is: how do you manage upward mobility in such a society? It is easy for people in the middle class (like myself) or higher to be satisfactory and say no more growth is needed. But even for this class of, for lack of a better word, non-greedy citizens, we still do hope that our, and our off-springs', living standard would at least be maintained. A steady-state economy would mean a zero-sum game for those living in it. People at the bottom levels of the society need to be given hope that they can move up financially. But in a steady state economy, that means someone else will have to move down. Yes, that is already happening in today's society, but wouldn't a steady-state economy makes the society even more Darwinist? Short of having a Utopian society that Marx envisioned, there will always be the have's and have-not's. How to manage wealth distribution and social mobility, and sell the idea to the masses, would be the biggest challenge for a steady-statesmanship. The promise of economic growth, like Abenomics sold by Abe, is still by far more palatable to the voters. Unfortunately I did not find the convincing case that would win the voters over in this book. Hence I have to settle with 3 stars.
I am anti-growth, but am still in search of a convincing and workable solution. At this point, I am not hopeful. Though I have a sense that the change has to start from the grassroots...
For the first question, I am quite satisfied with what I found in this book. It takes a layman like myself through easy-to-understand economic history, from Quesnay to Smith, Marx to Keynes. And of course the lesser known Henry George, whose proposed land tax caused the backslash that eventually corrupted economics and took the only limiting factor (land) out of the growth theory. And that technology innovations that are supposed to 'rain down from heaven' will then allow economies to grow forever.
For the answers I got to my first question, I would give this book 4 stars. It is the second part that is a bit underwhelming. Most of his proposals are good ideas, but I have to agree with one of the other reviewers who gave the book 2 stars: the proposals do not really take into account the people who actually live an everyday life in the economies.
Let us not forget that around the same time when classical economics was born and Industrial Revolution started, other modern concepts also took form: democracy and social mobility. Having living in Japan for 15 years, it provided me with a first-hand experience with a society without a growing economy for a significant period of time. The biggest hurdle, IMHO, in selling a steady-state economy to the electorate is: how do you manage upward mobility in such a society? It is easy for people in the middle class (like myself) or higher to be satisfactory and say no more growth is needed. But even for this class of, for lack of a better word, non-greedy citizens, we still do hope that our, and our off-springs', living standard would at least be maintained. A steady-state economy would mean a zero-sum game for those living in it. People at the bottom levels of the society need to be given hope that they can move up financially. But in a steady state economy, that means someone else will have to move down. Yes, that is already happening in today's society, but wouldn't a steady-state economy makes the society even more Darwinist? Short of having a Utopian society that Marx envisioned, there will always be the have's and have-not's. How to manage wealth distribution and social mobility, and sell the idea to the masses, would be the biggest challenge for a steady-statesmanship. The promise of economic growth, like Abenomics sold by Abe, is still by far more palatable to the voters. Unfortunately I did not find the convincing case that would win the voters over in this book. Hence I have to settle with 3 stars.
I am anti-growth, but am still in search of a convincing and workable solution. At this point, I am not hopeful. Though I have a sense that the change has to start from the grassroots...
December 15, 2017
Steady State Economics is a topic that really interests me, so based on favourable reviews I bought this book. I have to say I found it a slog to get through. It is very America based - sorry Americans but if we are to overcome the damage being down by Neoliberalism its going to take all countries to get involved. Worse though is that the book meanders. This book is neither convincing nor written in a way that gets clear points across. I did not need a review of what every US president since Nixon did during their term in office (I remember them!).
The last chapter, the one that should pull all the arguments together, is particularly weak. Weak metaphors, and unconvincing arguments. Consider this: "while the old maxim a rising tide lifts all boats, had some merit in an empty world economy we know this approach is defunct in the full world. The tide can only rise so far, and there is only so much material for a book building. So we would like the wealthy owners of luxurious yachts to share a bit, especially if they haven't done much to earn those yachts. But we do not want them to be attacked by waves of poor pirates, nor do we want so much rage at see that the gunboats are sent in to settle the matter. Not only would it be innocent casualties caught in the crossfire, but none of that is sustainable; it uses a lot of boots and pollutes the seas. What we want, in other words, is inequitable distribution of wealth, embraced as a feature of steady-state economics".
Several times in the last chapter he uses the cliche of 'putting the horse before the cart', and another dreary metaphor is about elephants in cages, and also doctors with overweight patients.
The final line of this book is “that's why successful steady statesmanship – the only kind that matters to the grandkids – requires honest, open, persistent and articulate leadership in raising awareness of the perils of economic growth in the age of supply shock”. WHAT? There is NO SENSE OF URGENCY in this ending. We are on a planet who's economic paradigm is leading us to the cliff, our population of 7.6 billion is still growing, we are already in the sixth extinct of species, and now the permafrost is beginning to melt, and at the end of a long meandering book that line is the best he can come up with?? I regret wasting my time and money on this.
Tony Smyth: author: 'Fukushima and the coming Tokyo Earthquake: and what it will mean for a fragile world economy'.
The last chapter, the one that should pull all the arguments together, is particularly weak. Weak metaphors, and unconvincing arguments. Consider this: "while the old maxim a rising tide lifts all boats, had some merit in an empty world economy we know this approach is defunct in the full world. The tide can only rise so far, and there is only so much material for a book building. So we would like the wealthy owners of luxurious yachts to share a bit, especially if they haven't done much to earn those yachts. But we do not want them to be attacked by waves of poor pirates, nor do we want so much rage at see that the gunboats are sent in to settle the matter. Not only would it be innocent casualties caught in the crossfire, but none of that is sustainable; it uses a lot of boots and pollutes the seas. What we want, in other words, is inequitable distribution of wealth, embraced as a feature of steady-state economics".
Several times in the last chapter he uses the cliche of 'putting the horse before the cart', and another dreary metaphor is about elephants in cages, and also doctors with overweight patients.
The final line of this book is “that's why successful steady statesmanship – the only kind that matters to the grandkids – requires honest, open, persistent and articulate leadership in raising awareness of the perils of economic growth in the age of supply shock”. WHAT? There is NO SENSE OF URGENCY in this ending. We are on a planet who's economic paradigm is leading us to the cliff, our population of 7.6 billion is still growing, we are already in the sixth extinct of species, and now the permafrost is beginning to melt, and at the end of a long meandering book that line is the best he can come up with?? I regret wasting my time and money on this.
Tony Smyth: author: 'Fukushima and the coming Tokyo Earthquake: and what it will mean for a fragile world economy'.
July 20, 2019
A critically important book that deserves a wide readership
This is a book about ecological economics and the need for a steady state economy. In part it is a follow-up to and an expansion on Czech’s “Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train” from 2000. (See my review at Amazon.) I can say that whatever your level of expertise and experience in economics, you do not want to miss this book. It is a very well informed and thought-provoking read on a subject of crucial importance in the world today.
Czech’s qualifications for taking on the formidable task of researching and writing this book are excellent. He is an ecologist and an economist and a very bright guy who writes well. His obvious purpose in this book is to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that we can no longer blindly pursue economic growth at the expense of the environment. He especially wants us to understand that the idea (held by some economists) of unlimited growth is basically a fraud and a Ponzi scheme on our grandkids. Czech calls it “the myth of perpetual economic growth.” (p. 251).
To make his case Czech gives a detailed history of the idea of both growth economics (mainly neoclassical growth theory) and steady state economics. In chapters three through five he discusses mainstream economic ideas from the eighteenth to the early part of the twentieth century. He compares the ideas of people like Henry George, Karl Marx, Francois Quesnay John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and others, and how their ideas developed and affected policy. By the way, Mill advocated a “stationary” economic state and Czech has a nice long quote from Mill on pages 68-69 to document it.
In Chapter 9: “What Have You Done for Growth” Czech recounts the economic history following World War I up to the present time. The other chapters of the book are devoted directly to his thesis: the dire need for steady state economics in a “full world.”
I recommend that most readers, who are interested in Czech’s delineation of what ecological economics is all about and why it must replace neoclassical growth economics, skip the historical chapters 3-5 and most of 9 (except for the end where Czech lectures Obama on his failure to understand the need for a steady state economy) and concentrate on the other chapters. However for other readers, for whom the historical economic context might more interesting, I recommend reading the book straight through as written. Clearly Czech, his editors and publisher believe that the historical background is necessary for readers to understand Czech’s argument, even prerequisite to that understanding.
Some observations and comments:
The main problem with neoclassical growth theory is that the ecosystem isn’t included in their calculations. Neoclassical economists have somehow forgotten that all wealth ultimately comes from agriculture, i.e., the “trophic” basis of wealth. This has always been the case. Without surplus grain no civilization could have developed; no farmer could become an artist or a craftsman, and no financers or economists could even be imagined.
The reason that unlimited growth is impossible is that eventually all the land is taken up and there is no room to grow crops or raise livestock. Some economists then say that human ingenuity will find a way, but Czech points out (with devastating effect on their pipe dreams) that standing in their way are the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (See in particular Chapter 7.) Obviously the planet can carry only so many people. If you run out of nonrenewable resources you can’t get something from nothing. Furthermore in any food chain there is a loss of energy as one goes up the chain. One thousand rabbits may feed 100 foxes (paraphrasing Czech) but 100 foxes will feed only 10 eagles. We can never get 100% efficiency from our food supply or use the sun and the green plants of the world with 100% efficiency.
But some economists might counter that oh well that’s a long way off. The really terrible thing is that “the best available ecological foot printing research indicates that we use the equivalent of approximately 1.5 Earths to provide our resources and absorb our pollutants. In other words, it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.” (p. 186) That is not only not sustainable, at that rate the catastrophe will be upon us in as soon as a decade or two when the water and food riots begin and the US goes into a Fortress America mode with the suspension of civil rights under a totalitarian regime.
No, I am not joking and neither is Czech. The very idea of the unlimited, unsustainable economic growth that is ravaging this planet being some kind of standard economic wisdom makes us understand why economics is called the dismal science. But today’s unlimited growth economists make me want to call economics not dismal but willfully myopic. Who do they think they are kidding besides themselves? And who has stacked the econ establishment deck at our universities with these clowns? And why?
Czech lets us know who historically. He recalls Henry George (1839-1893) who believed that the only fair and proper tax was a land tax. Oops. That kind of thing ran afoul of none other than John D. Rockefeller who used his money, power and influence to see that our universities were stocked with economists who believed otherwise. (See page 92.)
Today little has changed apparently. Czech quotes William
Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University as saying, “Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just 3% of national output. That means that there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy.” (p. 183)
This howler is nearly identical to something said by Thomas C. Schelling, a past professor of economics at Harvard, past president of the American Economic Association and 2005 Nobel laureate. (See page 183.)
How can these august economists be so clueless? Possibly because they have had little to no training in ecology or physics? If they had had some training they might realize that the human economy “is but one subsystem functioning within the ecosystem at large.” (Quoting Herman E. Daly.) Or they might realize that the human economy is a subsection of the planet’s economy. Czech adds, “We could even argue that it is the ecosystem from which the money flows (and we will, in the next chapter).” (p. 157)
Czech doesn’t think the steady state economy should be something that divides liberals and conservatives. He makes the point that conservatives should be for conserving the environment and not be in favor of “a pro-growth, transform-the-world-into-plastic agenda.” (p. 252)
Finally here’s something I didn’t know that is slightly beside the point but still worth noting: Millions of tons of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) “will not enter the stratosphere until the latter half of the 21st century, at which time some 7 to 13 percent of the ozone will be destroyed—‘enough ozone depletion to seriously alter life on earth.’” Czech is quoting Sharon Roan from her book, “Ozone Crisis” (1989).
The real shock is how bad it already is and that virtually nobody in a position of power has a clue.
—Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This is a book about ecological economics and the need for a steady state economy. In part it is a follow-up to and an expansion on Czech’s “Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train” from 2000. (See my review at Amazon.) I can say that whatever your level of expertise and experience in economics, you do not want to miss this book. It is a very well informed and thought-provoking read on a subject of crucial importance in the world today.
Czech’s qualifications for taking on the formidable task of researching and writing this book are excellent. He is an ecologist and an economist and a very bright guy who writes well. His obvious purpose in this book is to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that we can no longer blindly pursue economic growth at the expense of the environment. He especially wants us to understand that the idea (held by some economists) of unlimited growth is basically a fraud and a Ponzi scheme on our grandkids. Czech calls it “the myth of perpetual economic growth.” (p. 251).
To make his case Czech gives a detailed history of the idea of both growth economics (mainly neoclassical growth theory) and steady state economics. In chapters three through five he discusses mainstream economic ideas from the eighteenth to the early part of the twentieth century. He compares the ideas of people like Henry George, Karl Marx, Francois Quesnay John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and others, and how their ideas developed and affected policy. By the way, Mill advocated a “stationary” economic state and Czech has a nice long quote from Mill on pages 68-69 to document it.
In Chapter 9: “What Have You Done for Growth” Czech recounts the economic history following World War I up to the present time. The other chapters of the book are devoted directly to his thesis: the dire need for steady state economics in a “full world.”
I recommend that most readers, who are interested in Czech’s delineation of what ecological economics is all about and why it must replace neoclassical growth economics, skip the historical chapters 3-5 and most of 9 (except for the end where Czech lectures Obama on his failure to understand the need for a steady state economy) and concentrate on the other chapters. However for other readers, for whom the historical economic context might more interesting, I recommend reading the book straight through as written. Clearly Czech, his editors and publisher believe that the historical background is necessary for readers to understand Czech’s argument, even prerequisite to that understanding.
Some observations and comments:
The main problem with neoclassical growth theory is that the ecosystem isn’t included in their calculations. Neoclassical economists have somehow forgotten that all wealth ultimately comes from agriculture, i.e., the “trophic” basis of wealth. This has always been the case. Without surplus grain no civilization could have developed; no farmer could become an artist or a craftsman, and no financers or economists could even be imagined.
The reason that unlimited growth is impossible is that eventually all the land is taken up and there is no room to grow crops or raise livestock. Some economists then say that human ingenuity will find a way, but Czech points out (with devastating effect on their pipe dreams) that standing in their way are the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (See in particular Chapter 7.) Obviously the planet can carry only so many people. If you run out of nonrenewable resources you can’t get something from nothing. Furthermore in any food chain there is a loss of energy as one goes up the chain. One thousand rabbits may feed 100 foxes (paraphrasing Czech) but 100 foxes will feed only 10 eagles. We can never get 100% efficiency from our food supply or use the sun and the green plants of the world with 100% efficiency.
But some economists might counter that oh well that’s a long way off. The really terrible thing is that “the best available ecological foot printing research indicates that we use the equivalent of approximately 1.5 Earths to provide our resources and absorb our pollutants. In other words, it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.” (p. 186) That is not only not sustainable, at that rate the catastrophe will be upon us in as soon as a decade or two when the water and food riots begin and the US goes into a Fortress America mode with the suspension of civil rights under a totalitarian regime.
No, I am not joking and neither is Czech. The very idea of the unlimited, unsustainable economic growth that is ravaging this planet being some kind of standard economic wisdom makes us understand why economics is called the dismal science. But today’s unlimited growth economists make me want to call economics not dismal but willfully myopic. Who do they think they are kidding besides themselves? And who has stacked the econ establishment deck at our universities with these clowns? And why?
Czech lets us know who historically. He recalls Henry George (1839-1893) who believed that the only fair and proper tax was a land tax. Oops. That kind of thing ran afoul of none other than John D. Rockefeller who used his money, power and influence to see that our universities were stocked with economists who believed otherwise. (See page 92.)
Today little has changed apparently. Czech quotes William
Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University as saying, “Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just 3% of national output. That means that there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy.” (p. 183)
This howler is nearly identical to something said by Thomas C. Schelling, a past professor of economics at Harvard, past president of the American Economic Association and 2005 Nobel laureate. (See page 183.)
How can these august economists be so clueless? Possibly because they have had little to no training in ecology or physics? If they had had some training they might realize that the human economy “is but one subsystem functioning within the ecosystem at large.” (Quoting Herman E. Daly.) Or they might realize that the human economy is a subsection of the planet’s economy. Czech adds, “We could even argue that it is the ecosystem from which the money flows (and we will, in the next chapter).” (p. 157)
Czech doesn’t think the steady state economy should be something that divides liberals and conservatives. He makes the point that conservatives should be for conserving the environment and not be in favor of “a pro-growth, transform-the-world-into-plastic agenda.” (p. 252)
Finally here’s something I didn’t know that is slightly beside the point but still worth noting: Millions of tons of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) “will not enter the stratosphere until the latter half of the 21st century, at which time some 7 to 13 percent of the ozone will be destroyed—‘enough ozone depletion to seriously alter life on earth.’” Czech is quoting Sharon Roan from her book, “Ozone Crisis” (1989).
The real shock is how bad it already is and that virtually nobody in a position of power has a clue.
—Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
October 23, 2014
This is a very detailed look at the history of economic theory and how it needs to change. I appreciated the ultra-detailed look at how we got here, but it was certainly not light reading! You really have to be motivated to get through the first half of the book (the author even admits this - at one point he says "if you've made it this far . . ."). After that, I didn't think the second half was as compelling or convincing as I'd hoped. The author seemed to be only writing for the already converted - giving them talking points and enough background to be able to win an argument. I'm giving it four stars mostly because of the great background info for all us non-economists who care deeply about the future of the planet and need to be able to speak to others in a language they understand (i.e. economics).
February 7, 2022
Brian Czech’s “Supply Shock” is a wake-up call about the ongoing issue of unnecessary economic growth and its impact on the environment. Czech provides examples of what can be done to limit economic growth, as well as inform readers on what they can do to help. Examples of how economic growth has negatively impacted the environment are displayed and discussed by Czech, who uses his education and experience on the subject to help guide the reader throughout the novel.
Research and quotes are taken from different scientists and economists throughout history and applied to the topic, which helps readers get a better understanding of just how important reducing economic growth is to society. Readers should be able to comprehend most of what Czech is advocating for, but the use of images and diagrams helps the audience get a visual sense of what exactly is happening. Questions are raised on what our society can do to address these problems, and allows readers to form their own answers on what they think should be done.
Czech is brutally honest with readers on what is currently happening with economic growth and its negative impact on the environment. However, he does offer a glimmer of hope by asking readers to be a part of reversing the economic growth, and what they can do to help. It is this way that Czech draws in readers and provides such a hard-hitting read.
November 17, 2017
Well-written, thoroughly researched, and passionately argued; Brian Czech's vision of steady-state economics as the alternative to currently accepted growth-based economic theory deserves thorough reading, study and discussion. Make no mistake: this is about a revolution. Start with his well-supported contention that all current economic theory is based on a fallacy: that natural resources are NOT fundamental to economic prosperity. Proceed to his argument that perpetual economic growth - the goal of current economic policy - is not only undesirable, but IMPOSSIBLE to achieve. Cringe, if you must, at his assertion that current "green" growth incentives are as damaging, and ultimately useless, as traditional wasteful exploitation of resources. Then wrap your mind around his thoughtfully described vision of the steady state, the alternative economic paradigm to our growth-based present mindset. Here is a brilliant mind, pushing us to see an alternative economic vision for our future and embrace the values and the actions necessary to effect change. This book should be read by all students of economics, all politicians and policy wonks, every CEO and CFO of every corporation, and anyone who feels concern about the next Wall Street "bubble" to burst on our economy.
Read
July 3, 2024It was a well written and convincing (not that I needed convincing). An new take on a very prescient topic I want to learn more about. He made a very good argument for why we can't just rely on technical progress to make our outsized economy fit into our poor planet.
But... It didn't focus on the things I hoped it would--the last chapter was really what I was interested in. About a third of the book was historical background, which while relevant, wasn't really what I was here for. The last two chapters, talking about what we need to do, was what I wanted. And I wished he had gone a bit more into detail on that.
But... It didn't focus on the things I hoped it would--the last chapter was really what I was interested in. About a third of the book was historical background, which while relevant, wasn't really what I was here for. The last two chapters, talking about what we need to do, was what I wanted. And I wished he had gone a bit more into detail on that.
August 19, 2019
It's probably too late for a large part of my generation, but I will do my best to recommend this to any and all millennials I run into. The writer does a really good job of distilling down the more complex economic practices for the non-econ majors. :-) Inspiring concepts. Let's hope it doesn't take a global calamity to get it moving.
November 28, 2019
Important, valuable perspective on 'neoclassical economics' and this economics' results in our real world. Also introduces improvements to, and history of 'neoclassical economics'.
January 10, 2026
I made a solid attempt at this book looking for insights into what the future may hold in a stable world. Instead what I found was preachy and idealistic. An unfortunate addition to my DNF shelf
August 23, 2014
To really make his case that economic growth entails environmental destruction, Czech needs to establish four things:
1. There is a limit to the number inputs we can have in our economy
2. We've reached that limit
3. There is a limit to how efficiently we can turn inputs into ouputs
4. We've reached that limit.
Czech does a good job showing one through three. Which by itself does imply that there is an eventual limit to growth, but doesn't show that we're there yet. GDP ultimately measures trade and specialization, not environmental destruction - if I produce things for myself, say in a garden, it's not part of GDP, and I could be gardening either sustainably or unsustainably.
Which brings me to the big problem I have with Czech's approach - there's so much low-hanging environmental fruit to be picked (so to speak) that advocacy efforts could be much better spent on getting people to eat less meat, stop buying bottled water, drive smaller cars, and think about the economy in terms of sustainability. I actually agree with Czech that growth past a certain point is not a particularly desirable goal, in part because there's little evidence that it actually increases our well-being (http://natewkratzer.wordpress.com/201...), a point Czech would do well to include if he's going to argue against growth and still convince people that he's concerned with human well-being.
Policy-wise, I agree with Czech on most things other than immigration (and I'm not totally clear on why he thinks restricting immigration is going to help curb population growth?) - cap fossil fuel usage, tax pollution, etc. But none of these are uniquely steady-state, as they focus on capping environmental inputs - something we should do.
Czech also makes a clear error in analyzing Solow's theory about capital/labor when Czech puts human capital on the capital side of the ratio - since human capital can only be sold as labor (excepting cases of slavery). This is actually important since it means there is no steady capital/labor ration we will reach, instead we have a competition between technology (capital) and education (labor) to determine output. That gives us a much better chance to increase the efficiency of turning inputs to outputs and doing so in a way that sustains the availability of future inputs.
1. There is a limit to the number inputs we can have in our economy
2. We've reached that limit
3. There is a limit to how efficiently we can turn inputs into ouputs
4. We've reached that limit.
Czech does a good job showing one through three. Which by itself does imply that there is an eventual limit to growth, but doesn't show that we're there yet. GDP ultimately measures trade and specialization, not environmental destruction - if I produce things for myself, say in a garden, it's not part of GDP, and I could be gardening either sustainably or unsustainably.
Which brings me to the big problem I have with Czech's approach - there's so much low-hanging environmental fruit to be picked (so to speak) that advocacy efforts could be much better spent on getting people to eat less meat, stop buying bottled water, drive smaller cars, and think about the economy in terms of sustainability. I actually agree with Czech that growth past a certain point is not a particularly desirable goal, in part because there's little evidence that it actually increases our well-being (http://natewkratzer.wordpress.com/201...), a point Czech would do well to include if he's going to argue against growth and still convince people that he's concerned with human well-being.
Policy-wise, I agree with Czech on most things other than immigration (and I'm not totally clear on why he thinks restricting immigration is going to help curb population growth?) - cap fossil fuel usage, tax pollution, etc. But none of these are uniquely steady-state, as they focus on capping environmental inputs - something we should do.
Czech also makes a clear error in analyzing Solow's theory about capital/labor when Czech puts human capital on the capital side of the ratio - since human capital can only be sold as labor (excepting cases of slavery). This is actually important since it means there is no steady capital/labor ration we will reach, instead we have a competition between technology (capital) and education (labor) to determine output. That gives us a much better chance to increase the efficiency of turning inputs to outputs and doing so in a way that sustains the availability of future inputs.
October 9, 2014
I received this book from the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE). I absolutely loved the candor and passion with which it was written. The author really believes his topic and he has a way to explain event the most dry scientific details in such a manner that -without claiming that I understood everything- it kept myself interested to the point that I only had to skip a few paragraphs from Part III which is the most packed with theoretical stuff.
All the other parts are really -I won't say easy, because it is not easy to read that our world is practically doomed if we don't do something right now; but at least there is hope that something can be done, at least in theory, to try to keep a steady state of the economy i.e. living with the quality of life we already have, not better, not worse.
I loved the lighter parts when the author shares personal beliefs and his very personal decisions on child bearing and the like. He is very clear in saying that he does not feel comfortable sharing the information, but that he wanted people who made his same decisions to know that we are not alone, and that our thoughts actually make a lot of sense in this world.
My question for the steady state of the economy growth (or not growing at all) would be: where do we draw the line? It is obvious that those who are starving need to improve their standards, but the super-rich need to step back a little, and somewhere in the middle, people should not aspire to have more wages or consume more. Who is going to volunteer to keep their lives exactly as they are right now, and who is going to volunteer to stepping back?
Those are very though questions, and what the author says (or what I understand) is that if we re-enforce and give teeth to those laws that already exist for protecting the environment, we could potentially find an optimal state. I don't know how that would work out, but the grandkids shall see.
Here is my comment in Spanish in my blog : Comment in Spanish in Lunairereadings.blogspot.com
All the other parts are really -I won't say easy, because it is not easy to read that our world is practically doomed if we don't do something right now; but at least there is hope that something can be done, at least in theory, to try to keep a steady state of the economy i.e. living with the quality of life we already have, not better, not worse.
I loved the lighter parts when the author shares personal beliefs and his very personal decisions on child bearing and the like. He is very clear in saying that he does not feel comfortable sharing the information, but that he wanted people who made his same decisions to know that we are not alone, and that our thoughts actually make a lot of sense in this world.
My question for the steady state of the economy growth (or not growing at all) would be: where do we draw the line? It is obvious that those who are starving need to improve their standards, but the super-rich need to step back a little, and somewhere in the middle, people should not aspire to have more wages or consume more. Who is going to volunteer to keep their lives exactly as they are right now, and who is going to volunteer to stepping back?
Those are very though questions, and what the author says (or what I understand) is that if we re-enforce and give teeth to those laws that already exist for protecting the environment, we could potentially find an optimal state. I don't know how that would work out, but the grandkids shall see.
Here is my comment in Spanish in my blog : Comment in Spanish in Lunairereadings.blogspot.com
April 4, 2015
This was a thought-provoking read. The main ideas that this book confronted me with:
1. Economic growth for its own sake should be avoided, because this finite world cannot handle much more of it.
2. Over the years, and especially in the 20th century, economists began to promote and accept theories that did not account for the reality of how natural resources are used (and depleted). Czech explains the influence and pressure on economists which produced this change.
3. All production is ultimately based on what the Earth provides us, even in the information economy. There will be serious consequences to unfettered economic growth. Despite what our leaders tell us, you cannot concurrently grow the economy and improve the environment.
4. Thankfully, public attitudes can change swiftly. It is hoped that excessive, conspicuous consumption may someday soon be regarded with the same contempt that we now hold toward the pregnant mom who drinks, or toward the guy who lights up a cigarette in a crowded space. As more of us realize that natural resources are truly finite, and that those who liquidate these resources are ultimately hurting us all, societal pressure will strongly discourage this sort of wasteful consumption.
Finally, there is a prescription for how we might take steps toward a steady state economy.
These are just the main ideas that I, an economics/ecology/steady-state neophyte, gleaned from the book. Although it is discouraging that the Establishment pays no heed, this book is proof that at least some of us care about the fate of our children and grandchildren.
1. Economic growth for its own sake should be avoided, because this finite world cannot handle much more of it.
2. Over the years, and especially in the 20th century, economists began to promote and accept theories that did not account for the reality of how natural resources are used (and depleted). Czech explains the influence and pressure on economists which produced this change.
3. All production is ultimately based on what the Earth provides us, even in the information economy. There will be serious consequences to unfettered economic growth. Despite what our leaders tell us, you cannot concurrently grow the economy and improve the environment.
4. Thankfully, public attitudes can change swiftly. It is hoped that excessive, conspicuous consumption may someday soon be regarded with the same contempt that we now hold toward the pregnant mom who drinks, or toward the guy who lights up a cigarette in a crowded space. As more of us realize that natural resources are truly finite, and that those who liquidate these resources are ultimately hurting us all, societal pressure will strongly discourage this sort of wasteful consumption.
Finally, there is a prescription for how we might take steps toward a steady state economy.
These are just the main ideas that I, an economics/ecology/steady-state neophyte, gleaned from the book. Although it is discouraging that the Establishment pays no heed, this book is proof that at least some of us care about the fate of our children and grandchildren.
January 24, 2014
3 stars more for the message the book conveys i.e. economic growth has become a danger in a full world where physical limits to continued expansion have been breached, than the way it is conveyed. The author tends to ramble often, digressing in my view from the topic at hand. For example, we are given a detailed account of economics as a discipline, which ostensibly is important to know because of the supposed conspiracy of mainstream economists in taking land (read nature) out of the production function and therefore removing limits to growth, as long as technology magically progresses. So the material is a little dry for me in the middle portion of the book. We are also provided a brief history of the economic history of the U.S. from Depression to 21st century post 9-11, again to illustrate how any questioning of limits to growth had been time and again abolished by those in power.
The reality is that the idea of limits is pretty simple and easy to comprehend once people get past the denial. Once we agree on that, ecological economics for a steady state revolution is just the next logical step for humanity. Simple it may be, but doing the exact opposite of what we have been doing since the neolithic revolution - growing the scale of human economy, will be tall order indeed. Ultimately it isn't just about politics but also requiring a sea change in mindset of the majority to be satisfied with having 'enough' at some point and consciously reducing consumption. For who we choose to lead our societies is a reflection of what the majority wants.
The reality is that the idea of limits is pretty simple and easy to comprehend once people get past the denial. Once we agree on that, ecological economics for a steady state revolution is just the next logical step for humanity. Simple it may be, but doing the exact opposite of what we have been doing since the neolithic revolution - growing the scale of human economy, will be tall order indeed. Ultimately it isn't just about politics but also requiring a sea change in mindset of the majority to be satisfied with having 'enough' at some point and consciously reducing consumption. For who we choose to lead our societies is a reflection of what the majority wants.
September 29, 2014
I confess that economics isn't my strong suit. My eyes usually glaze over when the subject comes up. This is mainly because the topic is too often not grounded in reality. Gaylord Nelson's quote sums it up nicely: "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around."
Too many people think the world operates "the other way around". Czech offers a good example of this with this quote from Yale economist, William Nordhaus: "Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just 3% of national output. That means that there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy." (p. 183).
Czech offers a good and sometimes witty overview of the long history of how economics became unhinged from reality and now requires more and more growth. But in a "full world" such growth is impossible to maintain: the invisible hand of the market will eventually meet the "not-so-invisible hand of nature" (p. 156). And nature always bats last.
Czech's solution for living in a "full world" with limited resources, increasing populations and the threat of climate change is to transition to a steady state (no growth) economy. My neophyte position with regard to the subject doesn't allow me to fully evaluate Czech's solution, but any solution which starts from the ecological base of the real world is surely worth considering.
One final quote from Czech: "Laws of the people are important in the evolution of society but they cannot rescind the laws of thermodynamics." (p. 284).
Too many people think the world operates "the other way around". Czech offers a good example of this with this quote from Yale economist, William Nordhaus: "Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just 3% of national output. That means that there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy." (p. 183).
Czech offers a good and sometimes witty overview of the long history of how economics became unhinged from reality and now requires more and more growth. But in a "full world" such growth is impossible to maintain: the invisible hand of the market will eventually meet the "not-so-invisible hand of nature" (p. 156). And nature always bats last.
Czech's solution for living in a "full world" with limited resources, increasing populations and the threat of climate change is to transition to a steady state (no growth) economy. My neophyte position with regard to the subject doesn't allow me to fully evaluate Czech's solution, but any solution which starts from the ecological base of the real world is surely worth considering.
One final quote from Czech: "Laws of the people are important in the evolution of society but they cannot rescind the laws of thermodynamics." (p. 284).
November 23, 2014
Must read book: conscientious consumption needs to be commonplace now
This book argues for the need for a steady state economy - as opposed to most contemporary economic & political aspirations which are about growing at all costs.
As an ecologist and economist the author makes a good case. His main argument is about how the earth is bursting at its seams to provide sustenance to the large human population. At the same time, the foot print that human beings are leaving on the earth is getting more and more brown. The fact that the earth is finite means that there has to be a limit up to which it can tolerate the scarring done by humans.
Leading upto the main argument is the author’s explanation of how economic thought evolved over time. I personally found this part - in the early part of the book - most interesting. Even though I have a background in economics I was never really taught about why economic thought is the way it is. ‘Highly recommend reading it. he also explains why commercial interests (that fund a large amount of research) have never been keen to highlight the impact of their work on the environment because economic growth (and thus profits) do not generally agree with economic sustenance.
Lastly, The author supports his arguments with specific cases and makes appropriate recommendations so that taking the foot off the pedal does not necessarily plunge the world into a big bad recession.
This book argues for the need for a steady state economy - as opposed to most contemporary economic & political aspirations which are about growing at all costs.
As an ecologist and economist the author makes a good case. His main argument is about how the earth is bursting at its seams to provide sustenance to the large human population. At the same time, the foot print that human beings are leaving on the earth is getting more and more brown. The fact that the earth is finite means that there has to be a limit up to which it can tolerate the scarring done by humans.
Leading upto the main argument is the author’s explanation of how economic thought evolved over time. I personally found this part - in the early part of the book - most interesting. Even though I have a background in economics I was never really taught about why economic thought is the way it is. ‘Highly recommend reading it. he also explains why commercial interests (that fund a large amount of research) have never been keen to highlight the impact of their work on the environment because economic growth (and thus profits) do not generally agree with economic sustenance.
Lastly, The author supports his arguments with specific cases and makes appropriate recommendations so that taking the foot off the pedal does not necessarily plunge the world into a big bad recession.
June 18, 2013
Czech eloquently clarifies many of the core concepts underpinning the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy's (CASSE)position statement. A thorough understanding of the relationship between these core concepts of economics, physics, and ecology is personally gratifying and allows for even more constructive steady state dialogue. Supply Shock would be interesting to those with no education in economics, as well as for professional economists.
Rentz Hilyer
CASSE Program Director
Rentz Hilyer
CASSE Program Director
September 10, 2013
Engaging, insightful and fun. This book is an important overview of the problems that economics and the environment face today and how to manage a possible solution.
Both curious readers and specialists will be satisfied with it.
Both curious readers and specialists will be satisfied with it.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews