tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post5287160516107452879..comments2024-03-28T20:28:01.733-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Russia’s homage to Nord Stream pipelines — M.K. Bhadrakumarmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-16692183600838255102022-10-22T17:14:44.319-04:002022-10-22T17:14:44.319-04:00I was about to make a comment that energy doesn...I was about to make a comment that energy doesn't even show up in production functions, and then I ran across this Forbes article by Steve Keen which I have not read in its entirety (bold mine):<br /><br /><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2016/08/19/incorporating-energy-into-production-functions/" rel="nofollow">Incorporating Energy Into Production Functions</a><br /><br /><i>In my last post on my Debtwatch blog, I finished by saying that the Physiocrats were the only School of economics to properly consider the role of energy in production. They ascribed it solely to agriculture exploiting the free energy of the Sun, and specifically to land, which absorbed this free energy and stored it in agricultural products. As Richard Cantillon put it in 1730:</i><br /><br />Further down the page:<br /><br /><i>A potential way to achieve this is to accept that the whole idea of “labour” and “capital” without energy is a farce: <b>labour without energy is a corpse, and capital without energy is a sculpture</b>.</i>Ahmed Fareshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105255828394485657noreply@blogger.com