RE: The myth of endless economic growth

RE: The myth of endless economic growth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/22/2012 9:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm all for halving the defense budget starting now. Gimme a break. Bring the troops home. Close our scattered bases, bringing those troops home, too. Then, cut the Defense budget in half. While we're at it, cut spending in half across the board. We are going to get nowhere the rate we are going. We won't be able to tax enough people a high enough rate to pay for our wildly increasing spending. Paul Ryan's HoR budget proposal was something like $3.5T in spending. His plan would balance the budget in something ridiculous like 20 years. Rand Paul also has a budget proposal that balances the budget in 5 years. What really shocked me was that his proposal included increased Defense spending. Shocked me because Ron Paul has always supported reducing the Defense spending. It's nuts. but it works great to create bond slaves! besides how can america dominate the world if we bring the troops home?

Real0ne -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/22/2012 9:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Will more people mean more needs? Will more people mean more hands available to work toward those needs? That's economic growth. I think the trend is currently in place and quite visible. That's exactly your problem and the problem of several posts after yours. It's a trend! Well why didn't you say so! People's gross misunderstanding of economics comes from these two fallacies: scarcity and unsustainability. Here's why. Scarcity. Economics' big assumption is based on AT THIS EXACT SHORT TERM MOMENT, assuming ALL REMAINS EQUAL. Without this important assumption, models could never isolate, study, or predict outcomes from individual variables. But it's only a snapshot, not experiential reality. Nor does this mean economists are full of shit--it means people don't understand what they're looking at. In the LONG run, EVERYTHING changes. Yes, right now, this second, I only have so many apple and only so many apple trees. But that can change. OK, I only have so much land--that can change. But there's only so much land--I can graft other trees. I can follow methods of better production I just don't bother with right now. But there's still a theoretical limit? Sure. But it's so far away that it exceeds the number of apples we would need. And if not apples, another food source. If oil runs out, another energy source. Sunlight seems plentiful. There are always alternates in the long run. Trends. This ridiculousness assumes everything will keep going like it is right now, at current rates (or rates of increase or decrease) or similar more complicated points on similar more complicated models. It's ridiculous because those "trends" never materialize except in the minds of those fervently interpreting data to fit their assumptions. Things change. Things always change. Things always have changed. Things will never remain the same as they are now with no change in conditions. Never. Ever. Again, a useful model for adjusting current approaches. Useless except to delight those who love doomsday proclamations. Which, incidentally, has never happened either, despite passing repeated predicted dates. How is higher production possible? There will be more people. That simple. Only by insisting that this production must look exactly like the current "trend" does the model break down. It won't look like it. Markets always change. That's even true in the money-grubbing version of capitalism. Smart businesspeople adjust with innovations and changes in markets. Dumb ones complain about the times, while their competitors take advantages of those times. There. are. always. opportunities. because. there. are. always. needs. Only when people no longer have needs (or wants) will there be no more economic opportunities. ok here is a really tough one! if the population increases 10% over 10 years how much does the economy need to grow to support them? now that the gubafia suckered everyone into 401k's and the bably boomers start dying off say 20% over the next 20 years how much does the economy need to grow to support that?

tweakabelle -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/22/2012 10:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Am I the only person on here who has the slightest interest in human's negative impact on other species and the natural world? I guess so. There's at least two of us Iamsemisweet. The OP was concerned with the planet-wide effects of endless economic growth (please take note, Desideri Scuri, the world consists of more than just the USA) If we assume that population growth can be stabilised at a manageable level, and also that we solve the problem of diminishing resource bases, are we out of the woods? There will remain a few difficult issues to be resolved. We can I believe assume that literacy and education levels will continue to trend up. History tells that increasing levels of education and literacy lead to increased demands for a fairer distribution of the economic pie, and for a more sensible distribution of resources (eg increased funding of health services). Problems associated with increased life spans will add further weight to these pressures. We can witness fierce resistance from the '1%' to addressing such pressures in today's world - it would be brave to assume the eventual disappearance of such resistance. At this point in time, the claim that all such pressures and diverging interests will find a way of living together co-operatively and productively seems courageous to the point of foolhardy to me. It may turn out to be the case that this co-operation is eventually established. For us to assume, here and now, the inevitability of such solutions being found and implemented is quite a different matter

Real0ne -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/22/2012 10:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We can I believe assume that literacy and education levels will continue to trend up. I just about choked on my drink. (better luck next time!) with ipod cell phones endless movies and kids thinking cartoons are real and a public school indoctrination system I dont think so. in the age of horses and candle light they killed to get good books, today the kill if they have to read them.

MrBukani -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 2:25:16 AM)
This is the first real interesting thread topic I have seen in a long time. I heard about this concept about a year ago. A professor was talkin about it. Saying its impossible to ever keep growing. But politicians need to promise it otherwise they loose votes. There was a politician here saying we need more children to support the ever growing group of elderly. It was obvious how contradictive this sounds. Bottomline is there is always an ending point to almost anything. We have seen what extraordinary riches can do. In most cases they dont do anything but buy a milliondollar bugatti veyron and a ship as big as an aircraftcarrier. It does nothing for mankind except to show he has got a bigger dick. Its time to learn what moderation is again. Like my mother thought me never to throw away food. Otherwise we will bleed the earth dry within a couple of decades. And the moderation we know today is luxury compared to a century ago. So lookin for growth right now is self destructive. Lookin for stability is survival. Maybe in a 100 years we can start growing again when the population has stabilized.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 4:18:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani I heard about this concept about a year ago. A professor was talkin about it. Saying its impossible to ever keep growing. But politicians need to promise it otherwise they loose votes. There was a politician here saying we need more children to support the ever growing group of elderly. It was obvious how contradictive this sounds. Yes, it's a contradiction, but that's what happens in the system we have set up. Kinda makes one wonder about the system we use, doesn't it? quote: Bottomline is there is always an ending point to almost anything. We have seen what extraordinary riches can do. In most cases they dont do anything but buy a milliondollar bugatti veyron and a ship as big as an aircraftcarrier. It does nothing for mankind except to show he has got a bigger dick. Isn't it usually the opposite? Making up for a lack of something else? quote: Its time to learn what moderation is again. Like my mother thought me never to throw away food. Otherwise we will bleed the earth dry within a couple of decades. And the moderation we know today is luxury compared to a century ago. So lookin for growth right now is self destructive. Lookin for stability is survival. Maybe in a 100 years we can start growing again when the population has stabilized. I raise a toast to second this thought process. I asked a liberal progressive I used to debate on political topics what would happen we stopped consuming. Wouldn't it be better to reduce consumption? Wouldn't it be better for all of us to be much more conservative, in regards to our personal finances? I was scoffed at and ridiculed at the notion. He brought up unemployment never coming down, etc. Thus, according to him, we'd have to keep spending, spending, spending, just to keep employment numbers acceptably low. Not sure how that doesn't still screw us in the long run as we'd have to keep increasing our consumption as technology and innovation increases productivity. I'm thinking we need to get back to the one-income family (regardless of which gender that comes from) and a much more conservative bent in our consumption. More gardens. Greater personal responsibility and self-sustaining activities.

MrBukani -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 4:42:03 AM)
The bigger dick was kinda of a methaphore[:D] Anyway we might be a bit opposite on political views like I call myself a social liberal, but its good to see we can agree on basics. That would mean we CAN solve a lot of problems we are facing today.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 6:14:31 AM)
quote: ncreases 10% over 10 years how much does the economy need to grow to support them? now that the gubafia suckered everyone into 401k's and the bably boomers start dying off say 20% over the next 20 years how much does the economy need to grow to support that? The first is already answered. The second shows a misunderstanding of finance. First, the economy doesn't have to grow for my stock/bond investments to grow, because even if share values are down, I own many, many more shares. (Additionally, my 403(b) includes a 10% annual contribution from my employers, so that's just free money, pretax; not everyone gets that, of course). Second, baby boomers will be drawing on their savings in retirement; the economy doesn't have to grow at all to support that. In fact, that spending will increase C, aiding the economy. There's also this continuing myth that there's this one time bubble of older baby boomers that we've can't support from below. Nonsense. Baby boomers in turn had children, and grand children--it's why the population of the U.S. is three times what it was when I was a child.

tweakabelle -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 9:15:06 AM)
Previously I have written of the need to align the business interests and social needs in order to respond to the challenges we face currently and into the future. Given the failure of current profit-centred business models to address the challenges of our times, a failure that is likely to become more critical in the future (IMHO) are there any business models that have demonstrated a capacity to align the dynanism and innovation needed for business survival and success with a core sense of social responsibility and citizenship? "The MONDRAGON Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporation Mondragon integrates the interests of its workers/owners, and the social needs of the area it is based in into its business model. It demonstrates conclusively that profit need not be the sole basis for business practice and success. Mondragon provides an alternative to the standard psychpathic corporation business model. Can business models such as this provide us with a successful blueprint for aligning economic success with social needs and goals?

vincentML -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 9:32:04 AM)
quote: This is bourne out by looking at historical data on per capita real (inflation adjusted) GDP and observing that the figure usually increases over time, depression/recession bumps aside. A delusionary calculation. The math is spread out equally across the population but the benefit is skewed. What is the worth of real GDP to people whose income is clustered around the Mean? quote: Another way to look at it is to just look around and take a cursory accounting of your house and how many items are in it. Compare this to 100 years ago. The increase in 'stuff' is more than what can be accounted for by increase in population. The most developed economies are usually near limit on both capital inputs and population (labor), so technology is what accounts for continued growth. I understand but we are talking in this thread of global population. The "stuff" in my kitchen is in my kitchen not in the tents of the sidewalk dwellers in Delhi.

vincentML -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 9:39:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: This statement contradicts itself. How can a market be free if there is direct government involvement? What is your definition of "free?" Not even the Flea market is free, you have to pay somebody to put up you're booth, and the concession is usually a monopoly, i.e., somebody owns the land you set up on. I don't know where you idiots got the idea that there ever was such a thing as a free market in the sense you mean it, it's a hypothetical construct, in capitalism it refers to market forces in a hypothetical level playing field - not unregulated. If it's unregulated, it damn sure is not going to be level: bad money crowds out good, basic economic truism. It requires regulation to maintain any semblance of levelness. Go research drug cartels or the Italian textile industry if you want to study "free", meaning unregulated, markets. Of course we are talking about market forces. You are the only one who brought up the silly ass example of a Flea Market, where the rental is just part of the cost of doing business . . . and there is always a cost of doing business. Nor was there any discussion of deregulation vs regulation. I agree with your premise that regulation is necessary for the social good and to avoid monopolies. I was responding to the claim that government should own a piece of the business.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 9:45:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn He's not. There's the first clue. oh with the cutting comments.. [:(] the bottom line, dude, is the US is your country to destroy.. it wont come from lil me.. ..and you dont need to kick me out, I will be leaving of my own accord.. I do feel for those Americans that cant vote with their feet as I can.. So whats' the housing price situation like up there in Southwestern Canada?

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 9:51:20 AM)
quote: Can business models such as this provide us with a successful blueprint for aligning economic success with social needs and goals? Of course they can, but it took 400 years of Spain languishing as a Fascist state, first religious, then secular, to get to the point where it seemed like a good idea. The problem with doing that here is that it's socialism, goddammit - it's not against the law of course, but who knows how long that will last?

tj444 -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 10:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn He's not. There's the first clue. oh with the cutting comments.. [:(] the bottom line, dude, is the US is your country to destroy.. it wont come from lil me.. ..and you dont need to kick me out, I will be leaving of my own accord.. I do feel for those Americans that cant vote with their feet as I can.. So whats' the housing price situation like up there in Southwestern Canada? I have not been following that (I am in CA right now), it depends too on what part of southwestern Canada you are talking about.. Not sure how it relates that much to the OP tho,.. Canada's growth has slowed down in the last decade ot two.. and its only 10% of the population of the US..

Edwynn -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 12:48:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: This is bourne out by looking at historical data on per capita real (inflation adjusted) GDP and observing that the figure usually increases over time, depression/recession bumps aside. A delusionary calculation. As regards the question of whether output can be sustained, no it is not. Total output is total output, and the fact that it increases on a per capita basis addresses the matter of output vs. population. It was also explained that increase in output is actually favored by less use of basic commodities and natural resources, though I am not under the delusion that that would have sunk in, as it apparently has not. quote: The math is spread out equally across the population but the benefit is skewed. I am well aware of that, and likely into much greater detail than than you are. You are apparently unaware of the Gini coefficient of income distributions, but I most certainly am. As I am also aware and able to understand that the thread title and OP did not point to income inequality, most certainly a worthy subject on its own, but rather to the question of sustainability of total output, and that is what I addressed. quote: I understand but we are talking in this thread of global population. The "stuff" in my kitchen is in my kitchen not in the tents of the sidewalk dwellers in Delhi. True, that. And yet here we have this bitching about the people of China and India in their efforts to just get a few more implements and cook pans into the kitchen. People need to understand the concept of comparative advantage, and if that along with some basics of economic development, should understand that less developed countries will always 'steal' some lower-level business from the more developed countries and that the latter should quit whining and do what they are supposed to do and use technological superiority to explore new avenues of comparative advantage.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 4:59:55 PM)
More promising across the board are things like lean manufacturing, cradle to cradle, etc., which are more standard in Pacific Rim countries, but being adopted by a a few (too few) US companies - in fact, the US even has some competitive steel mills again, although not many and not near the capacity of China. Cradle to cradle effectively resolves the planned obsolescence/marketing cycle problem and cut's recycling costs way down - especially for the more expensive materials that are present in small but recoverable in economically feasible quantities in cell phones and electronics. Add to that a growing awareness that any sustainable growth remotely resembling US growth during the petroleum era will have to be based to a much larger degree on conservation and alternative energy - China in particular, with it's huge population and limited natural resources, has to innovate, and they already have entire cities lit with LED's. As living standards rise, birth rates tend to fall off - organisms under stress tend to increase their birth rates - most of the highest rates are in the poorest countries and regions, so in some sense, prosperity, spreading the wealth - although overall, what prosperity is may require some redefining in terms of quality of life vs. standard of living, there are several alternative schemas to describe quality of life in terms other than who has the most toys, QLI itself, (Quality of Life Index), the Popsicle Index, etc. Time will only tell if conspicuous consumption can be held in check in favor of a more holistic paradigm - always a first time, although a bunch alarmist jibba jabba about "socialism" can surely be expected. Socialism itself looks good on paper, and there are most definitely public sector functions that work much better as socialist subsystems: Schools, prisons, the military, police, fire fighters, etc., where demand is high, but compensation levels average (critical infrastructure workers) but market socialism appears to mainly foster the growth of Black and Grey markets - markets are just not a thing you can pick and choose about: if there is a supply and a demand, a market will emerge - not a damn thing you can do about it.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 5:01:56 PM)
Romney is firmly in the Oil camp - and the past. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/03/21/harold-hamm-has-a-vision-of-americas-energy-independence-he-has-mitt-romneys-ear-too/

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 6:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani This is the first real interesting thread topic I have seen in a long time. I heard about this concept about a year ago. A professor was talkin about it. Saying its impossible to ever keep growing. March 3, 2008 "Off-Topic" "exponential growth" "Hippiekinkster" 72.

Edwynn -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/23/2012 6:51:36 PM)
We keep growing as long as we maintain the progress of going from wood to copper to brass to iron to steel, to plastic to carbon fiber to ... From clay tablets to scrolls to Gutenberg printing to typewriters to PCs to ... That's what people are missing out on here. Their argument is correct that we do not have enough wood and clay to sustain modern development and lifestyle by those resources, though that may actually be oil and oil at present, a better argument in confrontation at the moment. What I would wish for people to see is that the oncoming of peak oil will most definitely be a blessing, not a curse. But semisweet is correct and justified in pointing out that we seem to be ripping our face off in the interregnum.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 2:39:32 AM)
Tweaky my dear, people don't want to discuss things like this here, any more than they did 4 years ago when I posted tha link to a lecture about exponential growth and the dwindling of resources. Let's go join one of those high-brow discussions... you know, "Dumb-fuck right-winger walks into tree" or whatever the idiotic partisan poke-du-jour is.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875