Print

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

[wierd]

Local maxima.

Humans are evolved to thrive in them.  We create them, we exploit them.  However, there are consequences to our un-ideal solutions-- and because we have become dependent upon the systems that are built on those solutions, we do not want to backtrack on them.

This has happened to our species MANY MANY times.  Numerous civilizations have grown up and prospered, then suddenly ended catastrophically from resource and environmental mismanagement.  Boom-bust is a viable ecological model, and so evolution has had no real pressure to change us away from it.


Humans, as we currently are, are adapted to this cycle.  We do not want to change our ways.  We want to endlessly postpone the bust end of the cycle-- but that too has consequences. 


As a species, we DO NOT WANT TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.

Living within our means == Zero growth, in any capacity, after reaching peak resource utility.

Our model of comfort and happiness is 180 degrees away from that goal.  Try getting an economist to swallow the need for 0 economic growth.  See how much he laughs before getting ashen faced when he realizes you are serious.

[Naturegirl1999]

When I took Intro to Macroeconomics, I tried to tell my teacher that resources are finite, that humans require resources, and are thus finite, that labor, whether by humans or machines, is thus finite, and thus infinite growth isn’t possible. Sadly, he did not seem to understand this

[pisskop]

Youre not seeing the point that capitialism derives from - resources, while finite, are so vast as to be treatable as infinite in the short term.  The nature of profit is exploiting local shortages in these 'infinite' systems.

Economics deals with concepts when discussed in the vague sense, because a finite amount gets measured and priced differently than the ones that are so vast as to be infinite.


There's a certain amount of assumption made that that a very literal person such as yourself has to accept in order to proceed.  Econ classes arent there to judge or make moralistic leaps.

[pisskop]

Morganites for the win

Planet created brain worms for a reason.  Earth was destroyed by Morganite thinking.

You don't need to get all Gaia's stepdaughter, and for the love of gawd, stay away from Miriam's bullshit.  Some kind of balance between Peacekeeper and University is the ideal path, IMO, with just enough gaian philosophy to keep planet healthy and happy.


It's a shame we don't have real brain worms. 

I cant hear you over the [size=9]+2 ENERGY IN EVERY TILE[/size]

[wierd]

The point that NG is making is sound--- You cannot, and should not, treat a quantifiably finite resource pool as if it were infinite.


See also, what humans did to the passenger pigeon, and what humans are doing with fossil fuels now.


Nothing within the constraint of our earth system is infinite.  Accepting this as the cornerstone for a new economics is the only way out of the eventual "Woops, we ran out of resources! System IMPLODES SPECTACULARLY!" part of the human Boom-Bust cycle.

[pisskop]

Change is coming.

Green energy is just starting to gain public support, its also been capable of turning profit for years now.

Business leaders are becoming more proactive about charity/civil needs, and environmental concerns are forefront now too.

Most importantly, at least here in the good ole' developed side of America, the new generation is coming and going to eat the old.  Change will always come from be affected from the top down.

We wont make the drastic steps proposed by many, but we will make a change.

[Reelya]

When I took Intro to Macroeconomics, I tried to tell my teacher that resources are finite, that humans require resources, and are thus finite, that labor, whether by humans or machines, is thus finite, and thus infinite growth isn’t possible. Sadly, he did not seem to understand this

Because you weren't in fact getting it.

The point is that you learn how it works then you can discuss it. You were too busy tearing down the system before you learned it to coherently debate the issues. Your job in that class was to gain the knowledge, not to try and overthrow the class. It's a macroeconomics class, he teaches macroeconomics. Regardless of what you say or don't say, next year he's going to teach the same syllabus, because that's the field of macroeconomics, and it's his job to ensure graduates of the class know that specific theory. Your job: gain the knowledge that the class contains.

And it does work. you might as well try and argue evolution doesn't work because one day the sun will explode. that's how much sense you just made. yes, ultimately the sun will explode, rendering all evolution on Earth moot. But no, that doesn't stop evolution being a thing. And yes, ultimately all resources will run out, but no, that doesn't actually prevent macroeconomics from being a model which helps you understand how economic systems develop and operate now.

[wierd]

Thats like discussing a fantasy story, as if it were real, Reelya.

Any statement that proceeds from a demonstrably false axiom, is not worthy of debate.


The elephant in the room is how dangerously close to a malthusian-esque catastrophe the human race actually is, by continuing to placate the notions of infinite anythings.


Here, let's extend the system, and presume we somehow manage to solve every physical resource problem.  The thing we have invented that can indeed become infinite, because there is no physical limitation on it (due to it being an abstract social conception) is DEBT.

We somehow manage all other resources including energy-- and the system slowly migrates toward this one source of endless economic potential--- DEBT.  Eventually, you have people so hopelessly in debt that they are born owing more than they will *EVER* make in their entire lives.

Sure, debt CAN CONTINUE TO INCREASE, but the society that produces?  It's not a world fit to live in.

[Naturegirl1999]

I learned how it worked, people assume profits can increase forever, because of infinite resources (which don’t exist, since resources are finite). Prices/value is placed on resources/labor/people, none of which are infinite, and thus profits cannot increase forever

[Reelya]

But that's just being obtuse. A model can be linear for a long time and you can treat it as linear even when it's not.

A similar argument could be made against Newtonian physics, since that suggests you can keep accelerating forever, which we know to be false due to relativity. However the amount you'd have to accelerate is so vast in practice you can ignore it and treat it as linear acceleration for almost all practical purposes.

And actually you don't actually understand the theory. You don't need to have ever-growing resource consumption, you just need net positive inflation. Since money is just a number, you can in fact keep doing this forever.

Money is abstract. Profit is abstract. Abstract has no upper limits.

There are places such as Japan which have net negative population growth, basically no economic growth for the last 20 years, yet nothing actually bad really happened. Economic theories did not in fact magically implode. So, we can actually test that idea that these economic theories fail when growth stops, because we can look at places where there isn't growth already. Nothing specific happens.

[Il Palazzo]

I'm with Relya here. Naturegirl was more interested in what she had to say than what the teacher did. It's disruptive and egoistic.

Thats like discussing a fantasy story, as if it were real, Reelya.

Any statement that proceeds from a demonstrably false axiom, is not worthy of debate.

Lol, no. It's an approximate model that gives good description in the domain of interest. It doesn't matter if it breaks in the extremes if it's useful where we need it.
If we went your way about it, then all of physics would have to be binned. (ninja'd)

[wierd]

There are practical limitations on debt, unless you decide that multi-generational debt in purpetuity is A-OK.

Once a person's debt becomes so great that they can *NEVER* repay it, then that debt effectively vanishes when they die, and humans have a finite lifespan.

So, either you want to champion for eternal wage slavery, of the very real kind-- or you have to accept that there are upper bounds on even abstract things like debt and currency.

[wierd]

I'm with Relya here. Naturegirl was more interested in what she had to say than what the teacher did. It's disruptive and egoistic.

Thats like discussing a fantasy story, as if it were real, Reelya.

Any statement that proceeds from a demonstrably false axiom, is not worthy of debate.

Lol, no. It's an approximate model that gives good description in the domain of interest. It doesn't matter if it breaks in the extremes if it's useful where we need it.
If we went your way about it, then all of physics would have to be binned. (ninja'd)

The issue here, is that you have people bumping into the limits of the linear models NOW-- it's like trying to put GPS satellites into orbit without accepting that you in fact, cannot accellerate infinitely, because of space curvature being a thing, (because space curvature's mathematics says you cannot go faster than C, as it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate.)

GPS does not work without GR.  You cannot make it work with just Newton.

Not acepting and incorporating the limits you find, and instead obstinately insisting that we have not bumped into a limit yet, (despite bumping into such limits-- HINT-- CLIMATE CHANGE), is just suicidal.

[Reelya]

There are practical limitations on debt, unless you decide that multi-generational debt in purpetuity is A-OK.

Once a person's debt becomes so great that they can *NEVER* repay it, then that debt effectively vanishes when they die, and humans have a finite lifespan.

So, either you want to champion for eternal wage slavery, of the very real kind-- or you have to accept that there are upper bounds on even abstract things like debt and currency.

The practical limits on debt are entirely proportional. For example with 2% inflation, debt can grow 2% per year and that's still the same in real terms. There's no meaning to the actual number itself.

For example for the USA's $20 trillion in debt and a 2% target inflation rate, then as long as the deficit is less than $400 billion, the debt is in fact shrinking. They talk about balancing the budget i.e. zero dollar deficits, but that's just the show-talk for the dumb folks. Anyone who's ever thought about it at all knows that's not how things work. Inflation wipes out both savings and debt. That's the point of how the system works.

[Il Palazzo]

Frankly, I don't see how climate change shows macroeconomic theory wrong. Energy is functionally infinite for as long as the Sun is shining, and so is economic growth.