Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

Also, there are limits to growth anyway. We may be able to double our wealth one or twice, but not much more.

[Helgoland]

Also, there are limits to growth anyway. We may be able to double our wealth one or twice, but not much more.

I'd be careful with that kind of prediction, Sheb. You don't know whether the next big thing will be resource-intensive: If it's AI or biotechnology, it might not take too many resources after all.

[Sheb]

Well, the thing is, the amount of energy we can use is limited. Doesn't matter if we discover fusion or what, we cannot sustain our current rate of energy growth for more than a century or two. (After that, we're basically pumping so much waste heat in the atmosphere that we're turning the Earth into a pressure cooker).

Now,we will certainly get increase in energy efficiency, but energy use as a fraction of GDP cannot drop to arbitrarily low level. Simply put, you need energy to do pretty much whatever, and if the price drops to (close to) zero, someone could buy all of it, and it wouldn't work anymore.

All in all, and assuming the rest of the world catch up to the West, we do not have THAT much more room for growth. And that's without counting all the other environmental variable we have to deal with. Growth forever simply is not an option.

[SalmonGod]

I've never really seen an explanation as to why infinite growth is an objectively desirable thing anyway.

[Frumple]

... that's... actually fairly obvious? Or should be. More of a good thing is more good. Growth is considered in regards to good things. More people are more opportunities for happiness, more pleasing things is more enablers of pleasure, more resources are more things (research, continued existence, pleasurable things, et al) enabled by said resources, etc., so forth, so on. Were growth infinite, the amount of those things would be without limit. There's... not much that approaches objectively good better than "More good things, forever."

It's just, y'know, impossible, insofar as we've managed to figure out so far. And actual reality tends to react to such endeavors by stretching as far as it can and then breaking catastrophically.

Were it not for pesky reality infinite growth would be about as gorram wonderful as wonderful gets.

[SalmonGod]

I dunno... most of the time I hear about growth in economic terms it seems like it's about... just... more... and good isn't a necessary part of the equation.  It's mainly more pressure.  Work more and harder and more efficiently so your overlords can enjoy more profits that do fuck all for your quality of life.  Produce more.  Sell more.  And then buy more.  Not because the things you're buying are really that necessary or great.  But because you need those shallow pleasures and small conveniences to be able to manage your time and sanity as it's squeezed more more more year after year.

[Frumple]

Eh, big thing with that is it is more good... it's just not more of your good, y'ken? Issue with it is less regarding infinite growth* than it is a very hijacked sort of control over what sorts of growth and where, etc., etc.

The concept itself is fairly straightforward and desirable, but that damn sure doesn't mean the processes involved can't be perverted to hell and back. Or rendered infeasible.

*Well, as an ideal -- as I mentioned, in the face of reality it's basically bugfuck insane to be seeking it. Growth is a tool in a situation involving limited resources, and a damned dangerous one in a lot of cases. Ideally, it's great, but, well. Realistically it has a cost involved and while infinite growth is desirable, infinite cost doesn't just counteract that desirability, it completely destroys it.

[FearfulJesuit]

Ted Cruz presents a 21st-century reboot of the First Catilinarian.

EDIT: More importantly, the President has acted on immigration by executive order.

Frankly, I sort of have to see this as, in part, an attempt to make the Republicans' life hell when the new Congress is inaugurated; it's definitely not going to do anything to heal the GOP's ideological divisions, that's for sure.

(Just to make it clear, I don't oppose the president's actions; it absolutely had to happen sooner or later. But it's curious that it happened now.)

[mainiac]

Also, there are limits to growth anyway. We may be able to double our wealth one or twice, but not much more.

I would be very, very, very surprised if that was the limit.  You can achieve that by simply using existing technologies to increase the capital stock of things that dont run into over-production problems.  For instance there is a shortage of good housing in cities.  We can build high rises in cities and mass transit in cities.  There's tens of trillions of dollars that could be created that way alone.

I think the limit to wealth is that eventually we hit the point where human needs are basically taken care of and people aren't motivated to keep increasing output.  There will be a few competitive people who just want the biggest yacht but they'll be a small minority and not move the global average too much.

[Descan]

Eh, if humans were willing to live with "needs fulfilled," you wouldn't see all these millionaires or billionaires who keep working to accumulate more. Not everyone is a Bill Gates in terms of donating and philanthropy. Not many are, actually.

[mainiac]

Eh, if humans were willing to live with "needs fulfilled," you wouldn't see all these millionaires or billionaires who keep working to accumulate more. Not everyone is a Bill Gates in terms of donating and philanthropy. Not many are, actually.

You are looking at outliers though.  Those are the people who devoted an unhealthy portion of their lives to nothing but accumulating wealth or the children of such people.  And even in the outliers you have people like Warren Buffet.  Dude has tens of billions of dollars and lives in a modest house in the suburbs.  The small minority of people like that wouldn't drive very much if it weren't for the billions of people who are still trying to work up.  But do you think the average person would keep working if they had 10 or 20 million and a good financial adviser?

[Descan]

It depends on what work looks like at that point. If it's "I have an idea, let's tell the AI and have it carry it out" then yeah, I can see it still goin' on. If it's blood sweat and tears, no, not really. And I can see people going in for education just for the knowledge too.

[mainiac]

Indeed I think a lot of people would do that too.  But they would probably not put that education towards expanding output with much priority.  Suppose you live in a world with a median wealth of 20 million so you study hard in school and become a playwright.  Your plays certainly have value but it's pretty small compared to per-capita output.  So as the world gets wealthier more people can shift into the work for work economy that's certainly worthwhile but not going to drive wealth.

[Sheb]

I don't think people will be satisfied, ever. I fully trust in peer pressure and advertising to make us want ever more stuff.

And I might be off by a doubling or two (which is huge), but it is important to keep in mind that the regime of high growth we've experienced since the beginning of the industrial revolution is a historical anomaly and cannot be sustained over the long term. At some point we will have to switch to a steady-state economy (if we don't experience a huge crash from the global ecosystem breaking down).

That's actually part of why Greens in general care so much about income inequality: we cannot expand the economy much more without crashing the ecosystem (Some would say we actually need to shrink it to make room for third-world countries). The only way to do so while maintaining or raising living standards for most (which you need to if you're going to sell that policy to voters) is to redistribute wealth.

[Glowcat]

Eh, if humans were willing to live with "needs fulfilled," you wouldn't see all these millionaires or billionaires who keep working to accumulate more. Not everyone is a Bill Gates in terms of donating and philanthropy. Not many are, actually.

You are looking at outliers though.  Those are the people who devoted an unhealthy portion of their lives to nothing but accumulating wealth or the children of such people.  And even in the outliers you have people like Warren Buffet.  Dude has tens of billions of dollars and lives in a modest house in the suburbs.  The small minority of people like that wouldn't drive very much if it weren't for the billions of people who are still trying to work up.  But do you think the average person would keep working if they had 10 or 20 million and a good financial adviser?

Something something, capitalism's goal is itself the generation of capital via M-C-M', Protestant Ethic and ascetic lifestyles devoted to Capital without the initial spirit, something something. Fuck if I know Weber.

At this point, a lot of the property-owners aren't Capitalists anymore, are they? If they're sitting on their money it isn't exactly serving its purpose to drive growth. It's more like... Hedonism that overwhelmingly seeks to maximize its state power and then rake in profits to... sit on them, or spend them for yourself on luxury commodities. It's like there's almost nothing left for Capitalism to do (i.e. very few things that are immediately profitable compared to maintaining the status quo's technology) and only stuff that the State might want to do for the general welfare (rather than profit). Can we change the system yet? This one seems outdated.

I mean I guess we could attempt another injection of wealth redistribution but this shit'll just happen again eventually until people are made irrelevant by our AI overlords and we're literally dominated by sapient private-property.