• Left as Center@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So .6 generated make a multiplier of 1.6 for the economy. (1 initial + .6 generated). Which is pretty much the norm in a standard economy.

    And your source which is reliable (links to proper studies) gives a multiplier of 2.6 which is totally off from the multiplier of 7 mentioned in OP link.

    Edit: thank for your link, I’d have ballparked 2 rather than 2.6.

    • dubak@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      .6 is a multiplier. It’s a loss of 40 cent per Euro.

      There are numerous studies assessing the return on investment, but I wouldn’t say that some are more correct. They are working with different assumptions regarding the environmental costs, which can lead to huge differences in the cofficient estimates. Currently, the goal is to convince EU commission to include the environmental costs in their economic models. The precise math isn’t that important, it’s the step towards better models that matters. The study by Trinomics is part of this effort and shouldnt be discarded, even though it comes from industry and though it claims large multipliers.