American Economics Thread
- Thread starter Bernard
- Start date
the cost does not need to approach 0. the growth rate in electricity price just needs to grow slower than the price of all other assets.
eventually, it will be a negligible share of the economy, and thus at some point an entity that commands a non-negligible share can purchase the entire output of the electricity sector.
electricity is a carrier of energy not a source, so unless AI solves fusion and scales it up, given global diminishing EROEI, it doesn't seem possible for electricity to get cheaper, only more expensive in fact.... since its the multiplier effect of cheap energy that gives modern money most of its purchasing value, not the other way around....
The lunatics want to ban automation.
Nah, it might be real enough.
Just that, the increase is covering the decrease in other sectors and the likes, which might result in total US, national electricity usage and generation not going up.
Probably energy used for crypto mining stuff might now get allocated for AI given how fast the crypto bros become AI bros.
Generally you are correct that energy usage is also an inaccurate measurement of absolute economic levels, but most likely the discrepancy in electricity use per capita between US and China is simply due a difference in efficiency.
China already has similar usage/capita as other 1st world countries like Germany and France.
Energy usage favor countries that are moving ahead in many areas at once, no matter what stage of development they are at. There's no such thing as fully developed. But it is not either a direct proxy for economy size.
supercat
Major
The US incurred an additional $345 billion debt from September 27th to October 1st - no idea if it has anything to do with Hurricane Helene.
You literally just put your economic nonsense into charts and expect me to believe that? I asked you for concrete numbers to justify your reasoning about how US obtains "real" economic growth without increasing electricity consumption rather through "energy efficiency", you've just quote more economics BS that doesn't prove a single thing.
View attachment 136744
Yes US commercial buildings cut their electrical usage per square foot by 50% since 1979, primarily due to more energy efficient lighting, but that doesn't even begin to account for the increase in GDP US experienced during that time. US commercial buildings only account for a tiny fraction of overall electricity usage in the country, so this effect is minuscule.
View attachment 136745
US energy intensity dropped according to this energy consumption/GDP definition, I don't see how that supports your point either regarding energy efficiency. Domestic factories closing, commercial buildings opening to support more middle man and financial industries, this would increase energy intensity. Absolutely nothing to do with energy efficiency.
If economists can't even agree that this effect is important, we can probably drop this effect right here.
But furthermore, this effect doesn't really help your point, since if this effect exists, it should only make us question more about how the US obtained real economic growth without increasing electricity consumption.
View attachment 136744
Yes US commercial buildings cut their electrical usage per square foot by 50% since 1979, primarily due to more energy efficient lighting, but that doesn't even begin to account for the increase in GDP US experienced during that time. US commercial buildings only account for a tiny fraction of overall electricity usage in the country, so this effect is minuscule.
View attachment 136745
US energy intensity dropped according to this energy consumption/GDP definition, I don't see how that supports your point either regarding energy efficiency. Domestic factories closing, commercial buildings opening to support more middle man and financial industries, this would increase energy intensity. Absolutely nothing to do with energy efficiency.