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

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 6:16:22 AM)
The economics of endless myth growth.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 6:50:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn 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. You're talking about value added economics, which is a bit different from depletion economics, i.e., taking a basic item and improving on it, from clay tablets to papyrus, and pen and ink, to fountain pens to typewriters to word processors, to the internet. At each stage, jobs were created, new technologies spun off from old, entire industries rose and fell. Part of value added economics is doing more with less primitive capital: a cellphone is essentially a small pile of minerals, metals and petroleum by-products - but it takes a huge, multimillion dollar fab and an army of engineers and technicians to create a computer chip for a cell phone, whereas it just take child slavery to mine the tantalum you need to make the phones, and there's an endless supply of those. The more value you add, the more labor and technology intensive it becomes - that creates jobs and leads to technological spillover that creates not just jobs but generates entire new industries and markets - but the margins are thinner, the initial capital investments higher, and you have to be a little smarter and more creative than the average thug to manage it.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 6:58:32 AM)
quote: You're talking about value added economics, which is a bit different from depletion economics, i.e., taking a basic item and improving on it, from clay tablets to papyrus, and pen and ink, to fountain pens to typewriters to word processors, to the internet. At each stage, jobs were created, new technologies spun off from old, entire industries rose and fell. Part of value added economics is doing more with less primitive capital: a cellphone is essentially a small pile of minerals, metals and petroleum by-products - but it takes a huge, multimillion dollar fab and an army of engineers and technicians to create a computer chip for a cell phone, whereas it just take child slavery to mine the tantalum you need to make the phones, and there's an endless supply of those. The more value you add, the more labor and technology intensive it becomes - that creates jobs and leads to technological spillover that creates not just jobs but generates entire new industries and markets - but the margins are thinner, the initial capital investments higher, and you have to be a little smarter and more creative than the average thug to manage it. All economic growth is value added. You, again, are confusing long and short term. You are correct, that cool value-added idea will be subject to diminishing returns. But value-added ideas are not limited to THAT one; value will be added in new ways, not clinging to the old ones. That's the difference between successful business and complaining about business climate.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 7:33:48 AM)
It is implicit that it's not confined to that - it does take more than a steady supply of child labor to get that tantalum to a fab - it requires transportation infrastructure, roads and vehicles to haul the ore, facilities to refine it, ships to carry it across the ocean, docks and more trucks when they get there, and all that transportation infrastructure hauls more than just tantalum - a cell phone requires only a minute fraction f a gram of the stuff to make a device on which you can talk to someone on the other side of the planet. But it goes back to Og and Ug, there is Two million years or better between a rock lashed to a stick and a Folsom point, and to some extent, it depends on your needs: if all you need to do is pound a stake into the ground, or somebody's head in, an unmodified rock works just fine - scraping a hide requires something a little more sophisticated. I'm not confusing long and short term, in the short term, you need raw materials to do things - in the long term, you have to learn to do less with more. When the Romans ran out of big rocks to build buildings, they invented concrete. Actually, I believe the Egyptians invented concrete: Muslim architecture uses virtually nothing but mud, fascinating stuff, they build arched roofs with no wood at all, no joists, no nothing, just mud. What I'm complaining about is clinging to the old ways, when they have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns themselves - the republican energy policy? Drill ANWAR? Invade Iraq? That involves externalities too - the externalities of not developing alternative fuels and the infrastructure to distribute them - this does not happen overnight. It was the Germans, running out of oil and everything else at the end of WWII that really kicked petroleum industry into high gear, inventing a whole range of petroleum by products, plastics, etc., and even pioneered the extraction of biofuels, in that case an ancient technology taken to the next level, since Germany doesn't have a lot of Olive groves either. But the entire oil infrastructure we have now, with the exception of the established olive oil trade (and olive oil burns none too clean, and it's too gummy for lubricants), all started with wind powered 19th century Whaling fleets. And I can damn well complain about it, when there is virtually no capital to invest in anything - the banks are all hoarding cash, probably in fear of another round of LBO's by predatory investment packs looking for easy meat, and what capitalization is occurring is mostly in China where you can make twice the profit that they can make investing over here. Look at the current accounts deficit, it's not going to last, they're doing to us what they did to Argentina. Oil has really been an exceptional boon for us, Britain clung to coal way past it's prime, which is why the Dollar took over as the worlds reserve currency (for now), and a good run for us, but if we don't do something else we're going the way of the Whalers. Economic policy based on short term depletion of primitive capital resources - ours or anybody else's, just are not gong to cut it anymore at these population levels. And it's really depletion economics that relies most heavily on cheap labor, and benefits from unchecked population growth accompanied by poverty and desperation - which give you both your cheap labor and your thugs to regulate it and drives birth rates still higher, etc., etc. i.e., it's all connected, garbage in, garbage out.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 8:06:43 AM)
Yeah. It's clear you're never going to be in business. At least not for long. Child labor? Once again, so much for having a real discussion. Doing more with less is only one way of finding value. It's also the easiest, less important, and less sustainable. I think that's where you and a few others are stuck, and that's where a lot of untalented managers turn attention. The problem with that approach is it's good for a couple of quarters. You can't cut your way into growth. You'll move your bottom line up a bit temporarily, but you are not adding value; you're trimming. Adding value means taking Xerox's 10 year old mouse, a television, and a simple operating system, hooking them together in your garage and calling it a personal computer. That's all Apple did--they invented nothing at that point, but they added value. Or Google--taking existing information and creating the search math to make it easier and quicker to access (previously, companies, like Yahoo, gathered categories instead). Then, in turn, sold not the service but that huge traffic to advertisers, and targeted adds to what consumers were searching. Value added. In both cases, no new resources were needed. In Google's case, they didn't even have to manufacture anything, just add physical plant. Value added means I realize local businesses are paying or traveling to a city I go to twice a week, and I transport the stuff for a lower fee since I'm going anyway. It means combining resources in new ways that create things and opportunities we didn't have before. And that's limited only by the imagination. As new problems arise, more people come up with more solutions. Imagine 50 years ago I told you I'd be driving cars with 40 mpg or higher fuel consumption. You'd have laughed. This spring I'm building a house in the NE that will entirely be heated passively by the sun. Simply a design meant to do that, my chief resource a clever architect friend. I'll also write a book about it, along with how I created a country estate from a field as a then struggling musician. Value added. That's economics.

xssve -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 9:52:40 AM)
quote: Doing more with less is only one way of finding value. It's also the easiest, less important, and less sustainable. I think that's where you and a few others are stuck, and that's where a lot of untalented managers turn attention. The problem with that approach is it's good for a couple of quarters. You can't cut your way into growth. You'll move your bottom line up a bit temporarily, but you are not adding value; you're trimming. Less sustainable than what, and define "growth" So much for having a "real discussion". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1468772.stm quote: It means combining resources in new ways that create things and opportunities we didn't have before. And that's limited only by the imagination. As new problems arise, more people come up with more solutions. That's not what I said? Value can be added along the entire chain: I can open a restaurant, turn meat, vegetables, and spices into tasty meals by adding value - I can go one further by buying those raw materials from organic farms, of even starting my own, I can even add value on the other end by installing composting toilets and recycling the digested waste matter, resulting a net increase in value while using fewer resources, other than labor and capital improvements, to create a self sustaining business. Cradle to cradle is a similar concept in manufacturing, tagging materials for recycling - that way, instead of your phone going into a landfill when you have to have the latest smartphone, the whole thing is recycled into that new smartphone, resolving the marketing cycle problem, which - my phone is "obsolete" by current market standards, it's the size of a pack of cigarettes, but it's well made, and still works, I can make phone calls with it, works fine, it's perfectly function and and serviceable, and there's no reason to by another one unless I really need or want a newer, fancier model - in other word, with cradle to cradle, I don't have to care anymore about whether constantly upgrading is wasteful, because it isn't anymore, tech companies can keep adding bells ans whistles to to newer models to their hearts content, and worry far less about market saturation - tighter product cycles mean faster innovation, higher profits, etc., and there is no reason to skimp on quality, the opposite: every reason to increase it without worrying about market saturation by phones that won't die - function is no longer an issue, and there is no need to sabotage function for the sake of the marketing cycle, i.e., lot's of expensive little peripheral parts that need to be replaced. I do have a business, and just for example, I have a microwave with a broken handle - I can't just order a handle and install it with the Two screws, they don't make it, I have to order a whole new door for $200 bucks to replace a buck 2.95 handle, and the whole fucking old door goes into a landfill, so a Maytag repairman has something to do, I'm getting sheared like a fucking sheep. Bullshit, I've turned into quite the creative appliance repairman, given that most of this shit is designed to fail the day after the warranty runs out. I'm happy for you, me I'm thinking of paying off the remaining debt, and getting the fuck out of here before it really goes to shit, I'm not starving but it could be better. It's good long term investment, but decidedly in a downturn at the moment, something I have no control over other than to complain as loud and as long as possible, which I intend to keep doing, thank you very much. Consumption is like half the GDP or better - what's going to happen when the credit dries up and so do the jobs? I need those fuckers to have jobs so they can pay me, they need jobs to keep food on the table and roofs over their heads - I make roofs, and I create jobs and value - and not just for loan managers to move money around - but I can't employ everybody. You're long on criticism and short on suggestions, that's easy, anybody can do that. You're not adding much value here, let's hear your growth plan, you have the big fucking secret, spit it out, where is all this magical growth supposed to come from and why do we need it? You sound like one of those late night telemarketers, what do I have to do to hear the secret? Three easy payments? Have my credit card ready?

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 10:07:25 AM)
quote: Less sustainable than what, and define "growth" Since I already did, my fart-catching friend, go back and read it. quote: You're long on criticism and short on suggestions, that's easy, anybody can do that. Well actually, back attcha, since you're the one taking the shots. But sure, I make my living doing exactly that. It's why my students get jobs while they're still in the course. It's why my clients seek me out. It's why people buy my book and attend my workshops--because I'm about getting results. And the very first thing we discuss--stop whining and making excuses. People have needs. Meet those needs, and you're in business. Match those needs with your skills and desires, and you're happily in business. Recognize that needs and conditions continually change, and you'll stay in business. You are back at clinging to a model that you admit isn't working anymore.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 11:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl When maximum carrying capacity is exceeded, sudden decline or death results. If all immigration could be stopped, countries with out of control population growth would be forced to do something about it or die off. I shall travel back in time and tell your ancestors to get back to where they belong and either die or suck it up. We don't want no stinking whiny immigrants that feel anyone owes them anything. The population problem didn't exist back then.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 12:00:25 PM)
Interesting that in the 19th century, the railroads were actively recruiting immigrants, to populate all the new little towns along the rails.

dcnovice -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 12:13:18 PM)
quote: shall travel back in time and tell your ancestors to get back to where they belong and either die or suck it up. We don't want no stinking whiny immigrants that feel anyone owes them anything. Art collector Isabella Stewart Gardner once sat, with barely contained boredom, as a Bostonian went on at great length about how how his ancestors came over on the Mayflower. "Ah yes," she replied when he finally stopped talking, "they were much less careful about immigration in those days, I believe."

MrBukani -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 12:26:26 PM)
We need less words and more action We need less material and more recycling. We need MODERATION............ no not you videoadminblabla I mean MODERATION in want want want.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 12:34:27 PM)
Even today, we are actively recruiting immigrants for specific fields, especially medicine and computer science.

MrBukani -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 12:37:23 PM)
Once we escape this little testical called earth we can have endless growth. In population and wealth.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 3:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn 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. Well, it will be a blessing if it is taken to heart by those who control our collective destinies. I believe we're past peak oil. Another poster has argued (privately) that Bakken and Alberta are our salvation. I'm unconvinced. The Earth is a closed system, essentially; the only inputs are solar radiation and the meteors and dust that are caught in our gravity well. Resources are finite. I see only two possible outcomes for our current civilization: 1)Collapse and die-off. 2)A reduction in the use of resources to sustainable levels, coupled with recovery of non-replaceable resources (rare earth metals, etc.) and replacement of fossil fuels by non-polluting energy sources. Growth at any rate is ultimately unsustainable. Here is why 72 is such a magic number... 72 divided by the growth rate gives the number of years it takes for a thing to double. So if the Earths population is 7x10^9, and is growing at 2%, in 36 years the population will be 14x10^9. Reducing resource usage can only be accomplished, in the long run, by reducing the number of users. Somebody earlier mentioned increasing the amount of arable land. How is that going to be accomplished? Cut down the rest of the forests? Bye Bye O2 generation. Reclaim desert? The Izzys haven't gotten very far even with huge applications of energy and capital. Maybe there's good topsoil under all those melting glaciers. Even if arable land is increased, will it offset the decrease in fish stocks? Or will there be no net gain in food energy? Increase arable land is a glib politician's answer, not thought through.

Real0ne -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 3:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Doing more with less is only one way of finding value. Like finding road kill? Now thats value! You'll move your bottom line up a bit temporarily, but you are not adding value; you're trimming. The best way to add value is to make it illegal! Adding value means taking Xerox's 10 year old mouse, a television, and a simple operating system, hooking them together in your garage and calling it a personal computer. That's all Apple did--they invented nothing at that point, but they added value. So value then in your opinion is where the latest fad is pointed. Or Google--taking existing information and creating the search math to make it easier and quicker to access (previously, companies, like Yahoo, gathered categories instead). Then, in turn, sold not the service but that huge traffic to advertisers, and targeted adds to what consumers were searching. Value added. Oh creating demand! Thats value? In both cases, no new resources were needed. In Google's case, they didn't even have to manufacture anything, just add physical plant. Value added means I realize local businesses are paying or traveling to a city I go to twice a week, and I transport the stuff for a lower fee since I'm going anyway. It means combining resources in new ways that create things and opportunities we didn't have before. And that's limited only by the imagination. As new problems arise, more people come up with more solutions. Imagine 50 years ago I told you I'd be driving cars with 40 mpg or higher fuel consumption. You'd have laughed. This spring I'm building a house in the NE that will entirely be heated passively by the sun. Simply a design meant to do that, my chief resource a clever architect friend. I'll also write a book about it, along with how I created a country estate from a field as a then struggling musician. Value added. That's economics. No thats not economics. Thats virtual reality. Value is an arbitrary number assessed to wealth for taxation purposes. Now how much value is your gold to a starving man? thats right ZERO

jlf1961 -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 3:28:23 PM)
At some point, demand out paces resources, then economic growth cannot happen. Endless economic growth is impossible, sooner or later you run out. Unless someone actually makes Nuclear fusion viable so we can manufacture elements in a reactor, we are going to run out. Besides, if the current population growth continues, in a century or two, we wont be able to feed everyone. Remember Soylent Green?

Real0ne -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 3:37:32 PM)
economic growth is a myth from the ground up. once you have a system that meets needs anything in excess is just that excess and it takes the form of inflation and debt. Growth today is for all intents and purposes nothing more than inflation ballooning and people do not know the difference.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 4:29:33 PM)
quote: Adding value means taking Xerox's 10 year old mouse, a television, and a simple operating system, hooking them together in your garage and calling it a personal computer. That's all Apple did--they invented nothing at that point, but they added value. So value then in your opinion is where the latest fad is pointed. 1976 isn't exactly "the lastest fad." The personal computer has fantastically added value. I'm doing work and searches and tasks inconceivable in 1976, and doing them faster and at a distance in real time. Major increase in personal productivity. I'm also able to "work in the city" will physically in the country, saving considerable money and adding the to quality of my life (not to mention reducing travel time). I have clients from all over the world. My regular MasterMind group, which meets every two weeks by video conference, is international. And all this costs peanuts. Value added.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 4:33:45 PM)
quote: At some point, demand out paces resources, then economic growth cannot happen. Endless economic growth is impossible, sooner or later you run out. Again, you're confusing short term and long term economics. As demand rises, it pushes up prices along the supply curve, inducing greater supply (people will complain suppliers are gouging them, but the increase is actually demand driven). But at the same time, those higher prices will dampen demand, as fewer people are able and willing to consume at that price. Resources don't run out; demand peaks at some point. Meanwhile, as prices rise, so does incentive to produce and to seek for purchase alternatives. Those alternatives create entirely new markets--economic growth.

Musicmystery -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/24/2012 4:34:58 PM)
quote: economic growth is a myth Actually it's simply a definition: C + I + G + X. It's a unit of measurement.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875