Money cannot be subsituted for energy.
Quote from above : How much money exactly does America have to invest in its future?
When the question should be: How much energy does America have to invest in its future?
The first question might make cognitive sense, in a way. After all we deal in money every day, momey buys the ‘stuff’ we need to survive. So by spending more we will obtain more of that survival material
Energy on the other hand is abstract, It has little to do with our everday lives and living. Much easier to grasp the nation that ‘spending’ will solve our looming problems, just as it appeared to in the past.
Someone reading this piece might nod in agreement at the need to spend, but search in vain for reference to the underpinning energy without which spending and money can mean nothing.
They might blame the yacht owners for hoarding money — -justified to a certain degree, but a hundred years ago the wealthy had outlets in which invest. Ford made millions, yes, but he invested more millions in building bigger car plants that employed thousands producing still more cars.
He could do it because he had cheap surplus energy available.
America does not have any surplus energy to invest in its future. That is the bottom line.
Neither does Europe for that matter. We have a higher tax regime yes — -which perhaps is as it should be. But demands for infinite healthcare (as an example) must inevtably break the European bank. It can do no other. Only today, theres news of a miracle cancer cure — -at a cost of £500 k per patient. Fine if you’re that patient. But unrealistic in the long term no matter what taxation level is imposed on the rest of us.
The billionaire elites will collapse just like everyone else.
Level them down to a median, and their cash will spread out over a wider area, but without the energy to underpin it, that cash will merely put off the energy depleted future by a decade, probably much less