Economics links

[erudito]

Constructing estimates of world GDP over the last million years.

The occurrence of economic “singularities” and predicting another one around the middle of this century. The author’s suggested next singularity I find deeply implausible in both type and alleged effects; it is far more likely to come from another breakthrough in the manipulation of

Comments

[sacred_chao]

I also note that, apart from a small light rail system, Houston has no public transport system other than busses. Given rising fuel prices and people needing to drive less, that can only remain tenable for so long. Cheap large backyards only work when you have cheap plentiful fuel to get around the resultant enormous suburbs. I'm not suggesting that there's an easy answer to this mind, but getting a longer belt doesn't cure obesity. Houston seems to function largely by leaning on its extensive freeway network. Any bets on how long it is before it develops outlying areas with sod all infrastructure and employment which start looking like low density ghettos? *eyes western suburbs of Melbourne*

Land price

[erudito]

If petrol prices become a long term problem (i.e. remain high with no substitute developing) Houston will still be better off, since attempts to build transport infrastructure will not be crippled by high land prices.

[jordan179]

I also note that, apart from a small light rail system, Houston has no public transport system other than busses. Given rising fuel prices and people needing to drive less, that can only remain tenable for so long.

You're assuming that "rising fuel prices" are a long enough term trend to affect development patterns. I disagree, because one very predictable response to such rising prices is substitution -- in particular, the substitution of other fuels for the power grid and of electric for gasoline-driven automobiles.

[sacred_chao]

Only if that substituted fuel provides the same amount of and growth in watt hours. Petrocarbons are remarkably energy dense and it's a dirt cheap way of sticking energy into a vehicle, even at current prices. If we can find a way, or collection of ways (as seems more likely) to continue to provide energy at our current per capita uasage rate I'll cheer. I do wonder how we'll manage that though, particularly given that a lot more of the world is starting to want to use energy like we do. Even given that we manage to produce enough electricity to provide for our transport needs, you'd be nuts not to made use of that in conjunction with a rail system as part of an urban transport infrastructure. It's cheaper per mile of construction than roads (assuming two lanes each way) and chews less power per passenger mile.

[jordan179]

Only if that substituted fuel provides the same amount of and growth in watt hours. Petrocarbons are remarkably energy dense and it's a dirt cheap way of sticking energy into a vehicle, even at current prices.

Uranium has the potential to be far cheaper per unit of energy delivered than coal, oil or natural gas, but one problem is that many countries (including America) abandoned building new nuclear reactors at the point at which newer and more efficient reactors were being designed. Another problem is that irrational, culturally-based opposition has stalled reactor construction in ways that have greatly reduced the useful lifespans of even the ones that could be constructed.

Oil is also not the only petrochemical. There are coal and methane as petrochemical alternatives. The proven supply of coal is good for many centuries, and there are believed to be vast untapped coal fields under the Antarctic ice (and, if we used our proven reserves of coal for those centuries, said ice would unfortunately cease to be a factor in limiting