 No, no, no, no, no. Maybe maybe it's better like this. Yes. Yes. Maybe we could put this on later. Not yet, just keep it blank. Okay. The slides distract. Okay, okay, so I'll do that. Stop sharing. I'll ask you. Well, thank you very much. That was very exciting session we just now had. Mattel asked me to speak today. It should be on the ramifications of the ideas that I tried to explore as a snapshot in time through the impact and equality because sort of, I want to argue that that's a entry into a sustainability analysis. It's a sustainable development or any variation on that thought to have any meaning is to have a meeting, it must as a minimum cope with the possibility that nature is not continually tampered with to the extent that the grades. So I focused attention on that. I focused attention on that in particular because the error is so large now, the overshoot is so large now that all else in some sense for the woman to be kept aside. That's the biggest threat to, to the human community. Now what I want to do today is given all the discussions we have had that really changed my plans of this course. I want to discuss some methodological issues, because I think that lies at the heart of some misunderstanding, I detected amongst non economists, particularly about what is driven economics in a direction which of course I fully believe has been wrong. But the issue is not my judgment. Is it wrong because economists are stupid. Or is it because the data that they observed at the time of the experiences, the time of the development of say growth theory growth models were such that they moved in a particular direction in approximating the world at large all models are totally unrealistic that the model they're character. The question is not the correction doing justice to what you see. And the my own feeling is that research is almost invariably incremental and suffers from hysteresis of the reason. And by the time they become a teacher, they've already got a human capital captured in a particular way of thinking so it's marginal changes that take place. So we should not be surprised if they defect assists until a shock. general concern about the effectiveness of the models make the change. So, the way I've approached the my work, and in particular the review is to bend backwards and try and understand what are the implicit assumptions in the growth models that have been devised since I think let's just for the sake of argument So it's 1956 growth model as the paradigm from which paradigmatic expression of macroeconomic growth of the long run, which is influenced growth theory now growth theory is not just theory. Believe me, it affects the influence governments for the last 40 years 50 years. But every department treasury department, central bank, different departments are planning in that America, Asia, we'll follow some variation. We start with very aggregate models. And of course, different departments will disaggregated to their purpose so infrastructure department will have more disaggregate model of investment in various categories. But the aim throughout is to amalgamate and to make it into coherent call for policy making, particularly when ministers buy for central budget for their purposes. And of course, if they're any good will have some assumptions that can be criticized because they're explicit. The points that's the easy bit identifying the explicit assumptions and then say well this is unrealistic or this is the cause of our problems, you know, why the policies are unsustainable. These are the ones which are the hidden ones. And what I'm trying to do what I want to do with you today is to go through in my judgment. I mean, in some sense, the key implicit assumption which has led to a rather resistance to the kinds of complaints that the colleges sorry environmental scientists, or friends of mine, particularly in the, in the older days of the 1960s 70s friends of mine like Paul Alec and others. They were not taken seriously by economists and the question is why. And the limits to growth, which have been referred to so many times in this process here. Why didn't that have any effect on the, if you'd like to decision makers, never mind large. What was wrong with the world models of the forest. So I'm going to take the, I'm going to look at the perspective from the economist vantage point I'm going to put myself in the position of somebody who has been trashing the old world models. And then see where he or she comes from. And then I want to show you how to stay close to the orthodoxy in modeling. I mean politics, I mean modeling. And then see how that's the quickest way of moving away from the errors of the models that I see. Now we use expressions like circular economy as metaphors, and that's fine. But don't believe me, no economist will deny that they're the circular economy. The problem isn't there. The key would be for the circle to expand. It's a circular economy is that you can keep on expanding and that's called growth. So one has to contend with that. The hidden idea here is that technological progress. Responding to incentives. Perhaps market signals in the 1770, when the world models were published, they were criticized heavily for the fact that they had no crisis. So there was no obvious signal, which would enable people to respond to resource scarcity. No economist would think it was a revelation that if you have an exhaustible resource, then it can be exhausted in time. You extract it. A definition is a finite resource. You don't need expanding population value. All you need to do is to keep on using it and eventually it will go to zero. So if the world depends on it crucially, if it's an essential commodity, then you are sunk anyway. There's nothing very much to do. What would argue, well, if it's exhaustible, and that was the kind of criticism that Nordhaus and others made of the world models. Well, no, not really. Well, if this is exhaustible, then there'll be price response, price will rise. People will try and find substitutes. And so the idea of substitutability became absolutely paramount. And I personally was involved in it and I'll come to it just as an aside as I go along. So that's where we come to. That is, the idea is not that it's a finite world. The idea is that human ingenuity and appropriate investment in different types of capital assets which can substitute for the growing scarcity of those which are being completed will enable us to continue growing. Not forever, forever was never in the idea. For a long while, 200 years, 300 years, 400 years. Now, of course, the evidence speaks against it. But we are now talking about the attitude of the growth of models in the 1970s when the world models were being described. Now, when I came to it, this was 1972 or 1973, I think, when the world, when I've read the, had a look at the world of Black Friday, agreed with Nordhaus that there were no prices in New York, I think in terms of something like prices. To serve as signals for individual response to scape growing scarcities. I felt also, of course, that the growth models didn't have any resources in them. So in a way I was sitting in the middle being a target for both sides. The question is how do you introduce these resources. The things that I studied in the 1970s were built on the then exhaustive. It may have had to do something with the price rise in 1973. I hope that price rise, but that I'm not going to do with scarcity. It had to be the one falling off in the power of the coalition of oil producers raising the price. But it was, it was the reaction was interpreted. It was interpreted as though what do we do the past crisis. Later in my work, I realized that exhaustive the resources were not quite the point issue. And I was alluding to it in my lecture on Monday, because in some sense the weakness of families economics, as I see, has been that it's been too easy. It's regarded conventional model of economics, the ones that are criticizing physically to like the solo at that moment. And there will be variations on that and I'll come to that in a minute. But you just embed on it, draft onto it, a climate system. And then if you, of course, if you're lucky, moving through the technological progress picture that you move from fossil fuels to clean energy. You can do that. And the models were telling us 2% investment will do the trick for you or 2% investment is nothing if you invest 15% of your GDP 2% on this you still got 30% to build roads and buildings and so forth and so on. And so growth and interior. That is a picture that should be resistant for reasons that I mentioned on Monday, and which is no news to any of you here. But I'm looking at the economic model in point of view. So, what I tried to do in my review in some star chapters, which I have certainly to buy both so I'm not going to go through in a boring way to pay enough to equation that's not the interesting thing. I just want to show you something, which suggests to me that it's possible to integrate economic modeling, modeling the global economy, I'm going to look only at the global things inside of things. Let's say I'm thinking in terms of the World Bank's coverage, the World Bank thinks in terms of global economic models and so let's do it here. Let's build in ecology in it, and the model. And I think I want to emphasize the demographic side, which does not need to be emphasized here because you've taken too long to be very seriously at this conference, but it's a very rare phenomenon. Ecologists don't typically study the human numbers and the economics don't. And of course, today it's not politically correct to talk about public. There as well. So, I'm going to stick to. I want to stay clean, clean with what the box to show you how to model that I have the first. So what the purchase I'm making to modeling it to give you a picture of sustainability, which will pick up many of the points that have been raised over the past two days. So I'm not looking at the time she's multi. And this frame one is that we're all. It says, why is a function of the model first two terms here. Okay, produce powerful age human capital. And are extracted resources. And these are. So you can sort of you familiar. This is as kosher as it can be, it's possible to stay. But these locations. This, this bit. You know about his soul. Covering up. And since then, of course, and those of you who are possibly this is a side remark. I've been at a technology. And as I was suggesting, in my, in the 1970s work and the 18th work on sustainable renewable resources. And it's a flow of resources taken from nature. Let's change the nature of good introduction. Okay. Now, one thing I think it's a promise has been always to arm that even if this goes to zero in the long run. Yes. Provided it is allowed to stand sufficient and that's the idea behind technological progress to sustainable sustainable sustainable even if mother nature is not sustained. You want to argue against that. No, the distinction I was drawing. It's not my distinction. It's ecologist distinction in the million in ecosystem assessment. I think to me, it's really not sure that they drew pipe as much meat out of that distinction, as I'd like to think I have been able to do but the idea is there is to distinguish between provisional goods and maintenance and regulating services. And what I've done here is to add the fact of chess. That's the virus spirit for like the lowly part. Of course, all of these to be segregated. But that's not going to help us. So, this is the standard production function that I'm married to, not just the productivity as seen as technology change, but start itself. It's like a blanket in which the human economy is closed. And this starts finding a variety of reasons. I wouldn't be able to be here at all. It's just to be looking at stocks and quotes equations. That's that the first cup into one. Then you can keep on expanding this and this to the house come home. This goes on the climate sufficient because very tough. Okay, so we've got to the two aspects of nature coming in. This will be the provisioning words and that has stopped is the regulating and maintenance. And this is the flow. So that's a stock, that's a stock, that's a flow converted into a flow output. So that flow is being tested by the stock on knowledge of your life in institutions, and the stock, the biosphere as it shows directly. So I do think it's just a few side one remark is remarked in slow because I think we were discussing it the other day. It's extremely interesting these things they have incredible power in our lives on our lives because they will trade government thinking. So giving more to this. As I read models in the World Bank, for example, to that is trying to estimate total factor productivity, which is a notion that you've come across the idea is totally back to property. The thing of all the inputs in the in our output as negative inputs, this whole thing. There's no activity of that production. And that seems to this day, you're ignoring this because it doesn't exist. So it's what stays put. And it's very easy to show that as that's our productivity growth. Let me hire the more you damage mother. Because you're not counting that you're not observing it. It's not only America. So if somebody says that part of the growth is very hard in the UK economy, hasn't been there. Or in the Chinese economy, it's very hard. Don't be fooled. Because it could be that she's in mining nature like crazy, but it looks up in the national statistics. That's very easy to see. So that's the background. Now, what I want to do is to add two circles to it. So I understand. Not so important that we actually believe that you could be the product, but it's a function of those things. Sorry. It's not that it's not that we should keep product seriously, but rather we understand this. Yes, yes, yes. It's important to know when you have some sustainability. Right. It's important. They're both necessary. Yeah, definitely. The product. Okay. Now. The purpose of this. Simple. That's not the best that I've already mentioned. The rate of change of that is the right side. And of course. This is negative is what the impact. So here's the net regenerative rate. Of the last year in terms of regulating maintenance. This is what we're doing here. And this is the culture input, which is a key thing between three economists have not taken on board. The first economist, the baggy one about the type is that because it's a secondary company, the waste, what happens to waste, it has been degraded. And the limits of degradation is going to be key to my, my way of trying to explain why it's definitely broken up possible. So why is my GDP? Do you like that thing? Now that my alphabets are explained as the efficient parameter, which it draws on modern ages. So it is. Plus. Some of this are key in my team that they see the DSD team was negative. And that's what I wrote down as a snapshot in the. So, the idea is to give it dynamics. And the key idea that protection from the ecologists writing. It's that, you know, but imagine that that's an audience is very dependent on knowledge and technology. So let's make it into that. And we say that out there may be an increasing functional way. But the question is, is it done. The key is going to be overcome. You should say it's bound, you should say it's unbounded. It can be the trick for you to raise alpha to infinity. Then of course you have it, you can get rid of the jetlit growth. Because this could go on increasing if this goes on increasing faster than this, which are fine. So the hidden assumption that I want to find out is the whole. All models. And in the notes that I've sent separately to you, you'll find that I've listed that who started from solo to indulge in. Right. So that there is a common assumption in all of them. And that's the hidden one, which is the following. No matter how large the economy is in terms of the margin. The demand you will be taking for an additional demand you'll make from other nature for an additional amount of money will be vanished. It will go to zero in the limit. Exhibit. And that's equivalent to saying that's how it was put up. So the boundedness of alpha, which comes from the fact that there is not possible to get. Definitely large output from a vanishing mountain by the nature is the one you see that. And that of course seals the room that seals the idea that you can have one. Definitely because it's why you can see this. And then back to the feedback with the, with the output production function. Even though GDP does not take depreciation into account. It's just output goes out. It doesn't mean that you can keep on it. Sorry. Yeah, for G you mean a decreasing function of S. Okay. I can't possibly not drive down and not in here. Not in this crowd. So here's the example. You know, this is supposed to be the issue. She swear about it. You ignore that bit. It's not logistic. That's bad. All I've done is to multiply by that factor. So that my. Logically based. This entire thing takes G by that. And I just have a look at the next slide. Well, that's you're not in here. I mean, otherwise I wouldn't even say that you'll come to it. I think you can only produce a function. So here is the, here is the S. L is the critical system collapses. You're on this side. Right of it. You can have sustainable sustainable. If it are that you're taking out vaccines. Of the output. And of course your extra training. And then. So that's the driver. And I want to have one foundation. One more. That's. Sorry. I wanted to give the door. Down. Here we are. So that will close them off. Standard models of economics either have. Population. Definitely. Concentrate as it's all. Or. In my kind of world. You're a constant. Some long run constant. We're not talking about it. So here's the. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. Dynamic software. You don't do that. So you see. dynamics of the. Global. Sorry. I'm very slow. The previous slide. The next one. Very sorry. The first one. Going to the next one. Sorry. Yes, it's a conduction function. I have human path. And here I'm talking about human path with a path of the modified population. So that's the link next to it. So now we move to population. Once I've got my age, small age, I'm talking exactly the same. So here's the population numbers, and I'm taking a simplistic quote for that. And there's a lot of possibilities that these parameters to new means like target, but new James like target population. I'm supposing for the same, just imagine for the same sake of activity. Just as a person, you imagine that there is a representative household of I'll go against it and show you how these models in the generalize in the direction you want. And it's saying that the size of the house so there's a target. And the J is a function of small age, such as what more human capital. You. And is equal to me. None of them say, of course, you have so much about it. Why do you say. Sorry, why DJDH is negative because. Yes, the more you have educated people, the less. So. What happened in the way to great. Identical households is to say that my view is a parameter to reflect the extent to which there are externalities across households. Say, for example, of the kind that you were studying earlier this morning, which is the household meaning. So your view will be affected by these. All right, so that's that basic stuff story. And you play now you have treated them in the equation what you now need is accumulation equations. Let's just say, I got here, I simply start such books. But I wanted to do that show how to move away from dimensional economic reason modeling with the minimal amount of manipulation. And see with what is going to tell you regarding sustainability. It's telling us that even if you have pure orthodoxy production. He will. Well, different types of stocks. Disaggregate and saying to the capital S. What types of different types of grasslands. So those are details for which this is not equipped to deal with, but the reason that it doesn't make sense to do that. So here we have this situation where you can actually get a story of sustainability in a manner which I was doing on Monday, without any dynamics. Now, so what will happen is, let me show the next one. I think I think I wrote out the information investment. Output is broken up into consumption investment. But the investment now is in three categories, produce capital, human capital, and knowledge of institutions. And so the next one. So that's a stock equation. So the next thing that's been produced, let's decide that this is gross investment. Minus depreciation. That's that. This one, therefore says that the team that is a net investment to produce capital, which is our government policies. Looking at this. That's just your subject. This one is the interesting and interesting one and all of us are also talking about, which is the team. Now, of course, if you want to go into my great knowledge, then you will be talking about an institution that you're going to deliver this capital product. There's a huge literature on that. Firms invest, they compete against one another for product. And then so there's the whole game to an economic game to it in literature. I'm not going to go into that, but see what's going on. It's just easier. I can get close and stops telling us where the hidden assumptions are. So that's the next one is easy. Sorry, but yeah, so how do we think about depreciation of capital? Isn't this affecting modern nature in some sense? So is it affecting us? Yeah, I mean, is this my show? Sure. Remember in the white team divided by. So it's in the right hand side minus white team. Yes, that was affecting South King. That compensation already picked up in other ways too. And this is the. This is that. Or here you put in the non-linear. So this is giving us our national accounts. As seen by the national account. The economist who wants to understand the data will have to provide a micro foundation for why investment here is what it is. Why consumption is what it is. And there is a different concept. And the distortions in the market, absence of crisis and so forth. And most of my review was concerned with the micro-economics show that the absence of markets. I come back to the original objection to the limits to growth and world model site comments. The absence of markets suggests that the economists were wrong to think that not having crisis for the worst mistake it can make. That mistake would be not to have modern nature. The two together about the explosive force. It's not there. Because pretty much gives you a sense of what is happening. Now, I don't know. The most that I've given you have a whole section in which I looked at models of piglets. I own with deal. So my lease. And the more. Show how the parameters. They are on special cases. Different models. Okay. But this, they all have one business section. Which is that why it's not going to see at the margin of the nature of the demand that would be made of our nature. And go to zero through expansion of a. That's not it. So, just to make sure and understanding the ADT, yeah, is increasing knowledge as a function of the investment knowledge in education on the institution. Assuming that there are no other kinds of knowledge, because it's not invest in patient. You will also have knowledge that might not be the one that you want to foster very hard. And it can be what happens in in very poor areas in developing countries like Islam. And the kind of knowledge that is generated there is, is driven by a different kind of investment. Yes, which is the best in drafts. All this sort of knowledge, which is not the one we want to foster. Yes. How could you put some. Maybe there is some very good knowledge that this loss. Very good point. You've already shown how to expand this. Because if there is a constant, you see, now the building in this by the investment that parents make to communicate with the child. That's not exactly high. Both time ahead. So you must think that this, these stock loads are all built on companies, government. Now that type of knowledge, you can include that, of course, in the microeconomics flow. Because I will generate if you don't invest, yeah, the other thing will take over. Yes, and we go. Yes, I mean, there's just a lot that you can do with this. Thank you. I'm not sure if I should mention the good stuff, but I was wondering about the bounding this is what you constitute mother nature because that's changed over time, right. Where we look back historically, society's extracting a lot from their local landscape, and then the landscape is all hard. And that's my main question is, with this local bounding that is that potentially taking into account with that, that this could change too. Thank you very much for asking. This is an aggregate growth model. Okay, because I want to stick as close as possible to the ones that are used to the bank governments and so for international purposes. But this entire fabric of thought can be taken to a community. So they have X would be the system. So my review, we can find middle chapters of matching both discussing the interaction of poverty and the natural space and the kind of social norms with the law is not offered to. Because the distance is so large that you can take it. The courts are 100 miles so it's a lawyer so long before formal norms of the society. There's a lot of rich literature as you will know. I apologize to bring them together into an analytical forum in chapter six. For laws and norms, social institutions, you can see where I'm at it. There you will be given a picture of the investment that takes place in the nature protection center. To ensure that for time and sure that the entity. Look is not next. So these my thoughts here is that essentially this is a story of asset management. And if anything, there's slightly not letting their review is to argue that we're all asked. And it was the first thing that was picked up as a point against the region by well distinguished. Saying that this review is commodified. Of course, the more they modify that can show you I know enough about the farmer, the fishermen, their lives dependent on that their assets. And they're solving arbitrary things without knowing what they are doing. They're adjusting. We know that very well. And so, yes, this is this kind of model. Obviously adapt to the local. Whether it's close to the village or community across that. Of course, that's what I'm saying. That will give us what the eyes are. So I'm very, very happy to see, you know, the population. And then it's built into the economic model, although it's quite hard to show that already this workshop has already created some. Some means that the ship and it's not. Assume now that the material is the government that has been thinking for 14 years in terms of macroeconomic analysis with in the language that material government understands, you're presented as fabrics is not. The material does okay and then what should I will be expecting to do. The first call with the, depending on which department you look at, if it's the Office of National Statistics, I'll tell them to start filing data with a view to capturing the material. I have my money today because I went into it. It will simply be the accounting value of K. H, and, and then. And sorry, and it's. That's the best capital capital. So, so that would be the papers. Well, you start with my crisis. But there's tons of work between trying to tease out the prices if the market prices are way off. Or they're zero in price for, let's say the atmosphere as a sink for our economy. That's what's called the social costs. They've been trying to estimate that $100. And if it was policy. So that's the first. Policy departments. Then how do we reduce the pressure. And we look at these equations. That's an easy question. I don't need this. But the idea would be to see where the distortions are and where you need the policy. I tried to discuss that on Monday. But I was doing that by looking at each of the components. The capital N. Small wide. And here, of course, I'm getting the dynamics of those. Small, why? Because small, why is simply capital Y divided by capital L. So the policies would be technically with this policy as a start. So if there are. Pissing markets. You move subsidies. They're creating. And there's you on that. They're, they're regarding nature. There's many. Not just you. Pay yourself to. I felt some states. Now to move those. We look at about five to six trillion dollars a year. That's a lot of money. The problem is, I was suggesting on Monday. Is that we treat it mother nature as a pretty good. Much of money. Or negative. So the first part of all, if you take that seriously. Convince. That this is a major part of the exercise of the chair. That's. The banks. Then you try and get some, some fights. Discussion. The other types of things would give us institutional changes. For example, trying borrow. In my job. It would be a great thing to be kind of. From the West learning from. How traditional society. You can't quite do that. But there are many things you can do. Which have been solved. In. Africa. And they have been solved. Unsolved. To. They're not. It's not. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But. If you think about the. Government institution. There are not yes. Very sad case. Post-Summit. Where governments. They have to establish their authority. So the Internet. The lives. Of. We can't. Managing. The forex. Bunch of. Wonderful. I suppose. work on that. And because that destroyed the, we used the word local culture, what I mean is, what I would say is, they destroyed the social norms of the people. The prohibitions are great for that. The prohibitions are taking things at the wrong time of the year because it's become time for the local ecosystem. So you don't have to worry too much. Now that may be qualified through saying that it's safe for it to be lots of it, and either whatever. But the fact is that they seem to have worked in the past. When they get destroyed, but are not replaced by a good substitute institution, when they have problems. And we are probably slightly, because in this case, the case that I'm thinking about now in response to the question is for us, is that the knowledge that local communities have, the local ecosystem, are exceed the knowledge of the great two kinds of training of the local ecosystem, the local ecosystem, the eccentricity of small scale. So these are things that really governments have to, should think about. And so that really needs your expert. I mean, I have many discussions of this time with my friends, my old friends in India who are now who have been major players in government. And to them, this backs of sort of maybe sort of a kind of a post-colonial reaction, this backs of sort of going back to something they don't want to think about. I find that biologics are key models of our system. We have improved in so many ways that people have to be treated. Anyway, I had a bit of a question. So this is really eliminating the rationalization of the other day. But just also connecting to the previous talk, this will have different regimes of solutions, right? That you sort of pointed out that you went to some regimes of crash, regimes that are maybe sustainable, if they have the right parameters. I don't have the notes. So I don't know how far you're going to investigate this. So a lot of these models, then they have relatively simple balance of facts when everything's linear. Again, you have exponentials, maybe. But then they can also get very sensitive away from that, right? Where they blow up or they have regimes that go too fast. Seems likely. I haven't seen anything like these done. So that's a public question. I haven't done that. I've literally done this. It's the one that would be the notes I've circulated. I still circulated two sets of notes. The first is what I've just not done and have ignored the discussion of the thickness in that. And the second one is an optimization. So I've written down the first appeal of the Montrealians. Who did receive this two lecture notes? I'm not studied with that. Not actually because I don't know how much I didn't feel that was worth it doing. Well, there's the alpha. Exactly. This is it. Let's take a minute because we have online books. Between here and here. Yes. I can see one thing. Sorry. One policy I rather obsessively did I personally. Because nobody else thinks about what we do about here is what the nation. So I just let yesterday suggested how much could be achieved if African countries can show up for exhaustions. Just try to reason the leaders of communities that the idea that we have, you know, to be empowered is not the way to colonial. There's a lot that should be done on end. And remember the end function that I had have the new times J. So the time. So I would do the modeling the system, which is new times J into the part of the population that the equation giving only six, seven children as opposed to so the equation is not very simplified. It's actually kind of rich. Which I would not be able to put out the work. But the parameters are sending you what the target is. Now, how do I know that also actually target is not only that one very interesting example was from the 1971 famine that Bangladesh suffered from the cycle that resulted in the government's additional debt. The replacement in a year. That's extraordinary. Consistent with finding that the currency is not that sensitive to nutritional things. We might think that's fine, obviously, but huge stretch. It's not where it looks like that. So population dynamics is there. Dynamics involved. So that's probably a point to be taken. That's exactly. I'll be coming back here. Can we leave our things here? Are you leaving? I'm happy. I'm happy to be here. So you also answered in the end directly. And the end is a little bit safe. Maybe speaking the language. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Just. Negative. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah.