re: global effective demand

I think Gert is on the right track with his last post.  Fred Block calls
it a shift from quantitative to qualitative growth ("Postindustrial
Possibilities", 1990). What is required to make it politically possible is
to forge a vision and a coalition based on the idea that "more stuff" is
not what makes life better.  Of course this would be a minority coalition
to begin with, and it would have to include the conscious coordination of
subsidies promoting various aspects of technological substitutes, in
various spheres such as housing and recreation (SUVs *must* be replaced!),
along with carbon taxes and other measures.  The current groundswell
against urban sprawl is a promising indication of the possibility of more
radical motion in this direction.  A "soak the rich" orientation based on
greater income equality in the core countries would of course be a
prerequisite during the transition period.  It should go without saying
that over the course of this red-green transition, there might be periods
of less than total social placidity, harmony and outward unity.

But back to my original point, if you just relabel certain types of demand
*green*, and still talk mainly in terms of keynesian *growth*, you are not
likely to arrive at lower, let alone, zero or negative growth at any point
in the future.  So the global keynesian approach is one way to carry out 
the red phase of a red-green transition, but as an end in itself it is
indefensible because it is unsustainable ("other than green").

RH