Our understanding of economic forces is still very limited
In most economics courses, one will be taught, whether directly or indirectly, that resources cannot be created. They can be discovered, but not created. The inability of an economy to create resources is an assumption that is worth thinking about. Is it wrong, or is there something mysterious about economics remaining to be discovered? Lets rephrase the issue a little. Mining can discover new resources for an economy, but these resources were always there. Researching people, the geologists, miners, and others find mineral and other resources within an economy, but these resources are already present within that economy.
Standard economics fails on the test of being logical
The creation of resources out of non-resources, in fact, happens all the time, but it is not within the standard economics framework. Hold on! The non-resources are already present in the economy, so they must be resources. Everything within an economy must be a resource if one is to be consistent. There does not exist a non-resource within an economy. Perhaps, but this is confusing?
Our problem with economics and economic analysis is that it is inconsistent in fundamental ways. It once was that economic thought followed the mistaken notion that equilibrium is brought about by market forces. Not so! In my view, market forces have very little to do with equilibrium. One is more likely to find disequilibrium arising from fundamentals of economics, and much of this has to do with the creation of resources within economies. The creation of resources is the much neglected force within economies misunderstood for the most part by economic theory, especially neoclassical theory.
The economic notion of free markets producing equilibrium is myth
Market forces enable exchange using money, but rarely enable a steady state of equilibrium, except as short run phenomena. The reason is because of new resources being discovered, used, or created within an economy, and new resources coming from outside the economy, both give the world an economic reality of disequilibrium, if only because of birth and death realities. The fact is that the greatest resource and economy contains are its individual people, and individual people are not a constant resource. The abilities of people are constantly being improved or weakened, waxing or waning because of learning, discovery and health. Most economic models do not capture the processes of human and technical resource creation and destruction going on all the time.
Energy resources must be made, created or discovered through advanced technology
Surprisingly the most advanced technology on earth is natural and consists of photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we would be dead. There are economies of scale to be tapped using photosynthesis as the engine of energy creation and storage. This natural technology can save the earth from the disequilibrium produced by the bad economic theories of neoclassical economics, those theories that believe in steady state equilibrium and which are totally off the mark, just plain bad economics!
For a start, economies of scale predispose economies towards disequilibrium. No economic model with economies of scale will produce a lasting stable equilibrium. Its just not in the mathematics, and yet most technologies embody economies of scale and most profits of economies are due to economies of scale. The neoclassical economic theories that neglected this or ignored this produced bad results, gross misunderstanding and wasted everyone's time in cloud coocoo land.
A sensible economic of energy assumes that energy can be captured, created and stored with the benefit of economies of scale. These economies mean that there is more than enough potential for the earth to supply the energy needs of everyone to come. The problem with the dynamics of economies of scale are that it will lead to disequilibrium in the earth's climate. The economies of scale of energy creation and storage must, absolutely must, be understood and managed.
