I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.

Avent's objection–that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it–seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars–and to light rail and the rest of it–would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy–

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Hamilton_oil_shoc...

Also recent work by Robert C. Allenn on why the Industrial Revolution took place in England:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570

his answer–cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.

Cheers,
– FB

I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.

Avent's objection–that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it–seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars–and to light rail and the rest of it–would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy–

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Hamilton_oil_shoc...

Also recent work by Robert C. Allenn on why the Industrial Revolution took place in England:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570

his answer–cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.

Cheers,
– FB

I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.

Avent's objection–that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it–seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars–and to light rail and the rest of it–would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy–

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Hamilton_oil_shoc...

Also recent work by Robert C. Allenn on why the Industrial Revolution took place in England:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570

his answer–cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.

Cheers,
– FB

I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.

Avent's objection–that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it–seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars–and to light rail and the rest of it–would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy–

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Hamilton_oil_shoc...

Also recent work by Robert C. Allenn on why the Industrial Revolution took place in England:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570

his answer–cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.

Cheers,
– FB