Economic Growth at the crossroads?

[bilby]

That was my argument. I brought it over here and several people tore it up.

I've tried to find the threads, but I'm not having any luck with the search. Peak oil, yes, unless an alternative replaces oil. Granted, the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline is gonna be damn hard to match, but it need not be a perfect replacement, it only needs to cost less for most tasks. We can always make synthetic oil -- yes, it's super expensive.

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Peak oil is a certainty.

Whether it is a disaster or a total non-event, however, is far less certain.

We reached peak-whale somewhere in the period between 1890-1900; the industry limped on until the moratorium in 1986, but was all but over on a serious scale by 1920. Outside the whaling industry itself, almost nobody even noticed.

I suspect mineral oil will go the same way; Alternatives will come on line at the same price or lower, as the new technologies get cheaper and the old ones more expensive; those few processes that really cannot use anything other than crude oil as a feedstock might carry on for centuries, but the volumes of oil involved will be minuscule by today's standards.

Coal too; Burning coal to make electricity is rapidly approaching a point where it is more expensive than other options; and as that point is passed, the remaining coal in the ground will simply not be worth digging up.

As long as the fossil fuel lobby can be prevented from successfully demanding subsidies to prop up their obsolete industry, the whole problem will solve itself - and probably would have already if they were made to pay for the externalities caused by CO₂ and other pollutants from burning of their products.

In the 1880s, a world without whale products would have been a frightening prospect (had anyone been smart enough to foresee its imminent arrival). But the fear would have been misplaced - unless you were heavily invested in the whaling industry.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Peak oil is a certainty.

Whether it is a disaster or a total non-event, however, is far less certain.

We reached peak-whale somewhere in the period between 1890-1900; the industry limped on until the moratorium in 1986, but was all but over on a serious scale by 1920. Outside the whaling industry itself, almost nobody even noticed.

I suspect mineral oil will go the same way; Alternatives will come on line at the same price or lower, as the new technologies get cheaper and the old ones more expensive; those few processes that really cannot use anything other than crude oil as a feedstock might carry on for centuries, but the volumes of oil involved will be minuscule by today's standards.

Coal too; Burning coal to make electricity is rapidly approaching a point where it is more expensive than other options; and as that point is passed, the remaining coal in the ground will simply not be worth digging up.

As long as the fossil fuel lobby can be prevented from successfully demanding subsidies to prop up their obsolete industry, the whole problem will solve itself - and probably would have already if they were made to pay for the externalities caused by CO₂ and other pollutants from burning of their products.

In the 1880s, a world without whale products would have been a frightening prospect (had anyone been smart enough to foresee its imminent arrival). But the fear would have been misplaced - unless you were heavily invested in the whaling industry.

Peak oil, yes, in the sense of looking back at history and determining maximum daily usage, but the traditional peak oil argument was eminent disaster due to supply constraints. We hit peak oil alarmism right before fracking.

 

[dx713]

The problem with most peak oil theories is that the actual peak oil will not look like what they describe.
They're mostly built on a simple model of demand vs supply where all supply is equal.
That's not the case, some supply is more expensive than other (think oil platforms farther from shores), and will get tapped only when the demand vs cheaper supply ratio is high enough for the price to have climbed above the costs for tapping them, and only as much as not to drive the price back down.
That will give a negative feedback effect, and the "peak" will actually look more like a "plateau".

I do believe (but fully acknowledge it's just a feeling, I'm not a market analyst) we were actually stepping on that plateau sometime around 2005-2007 with all the activites of planning the open new fields the oil companies were doing. We've stepped down since due to the crisis and economic slowdown associated, we might step back up soon if new growth is confirmed and emergent countries start to use their part too.

 

[NobleSavage]

That was my argument. I brought it over here and several people tore it up.

I've tried to find the threads, but I'm not having any luck with the search. Peak oil, yes, unless an alternative replaces oil. Granted, the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline is gonna be damn hard to match, but it need not be a perfect replacement, it only needs to cost less for most tasks. We can always make synthetic oil -- yes, it's super expensive.

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Define growth? The OP said "Economic Growth". Yes, there is a maximum carrying capacity, but that is different from economic growth.

 

[DBT]

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Define growth? The OP said "Economic Growth". Yes, there is a maximum carrying capacity, but that is different from economic growth.

Economic activity/growth and the ecosystems it draws on are inseparable. Inseparable because all of the raw materials for human activity, as represented by the term 'economy' come from the environment. A fact that too many neoclassical economists appear to disregard.

'Economic growth' entails any form of commercial activity, mining, drilling for oil, food production, retail sails, land being cleared, new houses built, more shops and businesses opened for business, etc, etc. A Nation's economy that is expanding or growing larger in terms of volume of goods and/or an increase in prices (not necessarily inflation).

An economy in recession is basically the opposite, a drop in retail activity, building, etc.

A steady state economy is an economy with stable or mildly fluctuating size, but not necessarily stationary in relation to scientific and social advancement.

''It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'' - John Stuart Mill.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Define growth? The OP said "Economic Growth". Yes, there is a maximum carrying capacity, but that is different from economic growth.

Economic activity/growth and the ecosystems it draws on are inseparable. Inseparable because all of the raw materials for human activity, as represented by the term 'economy' come from the environment. A fact that too many neoclassical economists appear to disregard.

'Economic growth' entails any form of commercial activity, mining, drilling for oil, food production, retail sails, land being cleared, new houses built, more shops and businesses opened for business, etc, etc. A Nation's economy that is expanding or growing larger in terms of volume of goods and/or an increase in prices (not necessarily inflation).

An economy in recession is basically the opposite, a drop in retail activity, building, etc.

A steady state economy is an economy with stable or mildly fluctuating size, but not necessarily stationary in relation to scientific and social advancement.

''It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'' - John Stuart Mill.

Economic activity is inseparable from the ecosystem, but you can invent a better mouse trap that uses less resources and provides a net benefit to society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For several years I read everything at http://theoildrum.com/ with an open mind. The site now is just an archive. The specific theme was "peak oil" and the general theme was "peak economic growth". I came to the conclusion that the were mostly full of shit.

Given a finite supply of Crude, 'peak oil' must arrive at some time. The only question is, when? Given a finite Planet, arable land, fresh water, etc, 'peak economic growth' must happen at some time. The only question is, when?

Peak oil, I agree.

Peak economic growth--this assumes economics is tied to physical items. Since I don't see that as a given I can't agree with the conclusion. It *MAY* be true but I consider it unproven.

 

[DBT]

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Define growth? The OP said "Economic Growth". Yes, there is a maximum carrying capacity, but that is different from economic growth.

Economic activity/growth and the ecosystems it draws on are inseparable. Inseparable because all of the raw materials for human activity, as represented by the term 'economy' come from the environment. A fact that too many neoclassical economists appear to disregard.

'Economic growth' entails any form of commercial activity, mining, drilling for oil, food production, retail sails, land being cleared, new houses built, more shops and businesses opened for business, etc, etc. A Nation's economy that is expanding or growing larger in terms of volume of goods and/or an increase in prices (not necessarily inflation).

An economy in recession is basically the opposite, a drop in retail activity, building, etc.

A steady state economy is an economy with stable or mildly fluctuating size, but not necessarily stationary in relation to scientific and social advancement.

''It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'' - John Stuart Mill.

Economic activity is inseparable from the ecosystem, but you can invent a better mouse trap that uses less resources and provides a net benefit to society.

That's right. Efficiency is beneficial, but it only goes so far in terms of economic growth, ultimately you have to keep building new houses, import or manufacture materials, etc, in order to maintain growth. Neoclassical economists generally hold the view that economic growth cannot be sustained without population growth supplying a steady increase in demand for goods and services: a growing economy.

 

[bilby]

I don't know how they could have torn it up. It can't be torn up. It's just a matter of basic physics, logic and mathematical relationships. Finite non renewable resources cannot last forever. Some may argue that science shall come to the rescue with alternatives but that still doesn't address the problem of carrying capacity of ecosystems, which of course place a limit upon growth.

Can we go over a cliff? Yes. Will we? I don't know. I figure the market will solve the problem (gasp!), before politicians. Example, roof top solar is going to beat the cost of coal in all 50 states in a few years. The best thing the politicians can do is make sure the fossil fuel industry doesn't distort the market.

I don't think that we must necessarily crash, but I don't think that our major problems are being adequately addressed. Politicians tend to look only as far as the next election. The Market is concerned with turning a profit in any way it can.

Except for the work of dedicated ecologists, politically, our ecosystems are not given much more than lip service.

Define growth? The OP said "Economic Growth". Yes, there is a maximum carrying capacity, but that is different from economic growth.

Economic activity/growth and the ecosystems it draws on are inseparable. Inseparable because all of the raw materials for human activity, as represented by the term 'economy' come from the environment. A fact that too many neoclassical economists appear to disregard.

'Economic growth' entails any form of commercial activity, mining, drilling for oil, food production, retail sails, land being cleared, new houses built, more shops and businesses opened for business, etc, etc. A Nation's economy that is expanding or growing larger in terms of volume of goods and/or an increase in prices (not necessarily inflation).

An economy in recession is basically the opposite, a drop in retail activity, building, etc.

A steady state economy is an economy with stable or mildly fluctuating size, but not necessarily stationary in relation to scientific and social advancement.

''It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'' - John Stuart Mill.

Economic activity is inseparable from the ecosystem, but you can invent a better mouse trap that uses less resources and provides a net benefit to society.

That's right. Efficiency is beneficial, but it only goes so far in terms of economic growth, ultimately you have to keep building new houses, import or manufacture materials, etc, in order to maintain growth. Neoclassical economists generally hold the view that economic growth cannot be sustained without population growth supplying a steady increase in demand for goods and services: a growing economy.

I guess we can add that one to the list of things neoclassical economists get wrong, then.

For example; Russia had a net population decline for the entire decade 1998 - 2008; and Russian GDP growth was positive for every single one of those years.

 

[NobleSavage]

The way I remember Neoclassical economics: There is intensive growth (efficiency) and extensive growth (increase in inputs). And generally extensive growth is subject to diminishing returns.

 

[DBT]

Given a finite supply of Crude, 'peak oil' must arrive at some time. The only question is, when? Given a finite Planet, arable land, fresh water, etc, 'peak economic growth' must happen at some time. The only question is, when?

Peak oil, I agree.

Peak economic growth--this assumes economics is tied to physical items. Since I don't see that as a given I can't agree with the conclusion. It *MAY* be true but I consider it unproven.

Where does our food come from? Cotton, wool, leather, synthetics for clothing and footwear? Manufacture, Trade, etc....all of which represents economic activity.

Now look at what happens when even a single sector fails, a collapse or even a slowdown in the real estate market. What happens to supply? What happens to economic growth? There lies your proof that our economy is inseparably tied to physical items. Food, for example, is the most essential of all physical items in the economy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Peak oil, I agree.

Peak economic growth--this assumes economics is tied to physical items. Since I don't see that as a given I can't agree with the conclusion. It *MAY* be true but I consider it unproven.

Where does our food come from? Cotton, wool, leather, synthetics for clothing and footwear? Manufacture, Trade, etc....all of which represents economic activity.

Now look at what happens when even a single sector fails, a collapse or even a slowdown in the real estate market. What happens to supply? What happens to economic growth? There lies your proof that our economy is inseparably tied to physical items. Food, for example, is the most essential of all physical items in the economy.

All of those things are physical.

More and more of what we use is digital, though.

 

[DBT]

Where does our food come from? Cotton, wool, leather, synthetics for clothing and footwear? Manufacture, Trade, etc....all of which represents economic activity.

Now look at what happens when even a single sector fails, a collapse or even a slowdown in the real estate market. What happens to supply? What happens to economic growth? There lies your proof that our economy is inseparably tied to physical items. Food, for example, is the most essential of all physical items in the economy.

All of those things are physical.

More and more of what we use is digital, though.

You can't eat digital, you can't wear digital, digital alone won't provide you with shelter, digital information alone does not put the bread on the table, all of which are the fundamentals of life. Information, just as with all goods and services within a stable population achieves equilibrium, which is the peak of economic (commercial activity) and the formation of a steady state economy...why do you think that nations with stable birth rates are trying to stimulate higher birth rates through the use of various benefit schemes? Nor does a steady state economy entail limits to scientific endevour and social advancement.

 

[barbos]

All of those things are physical.

More and more of what we use is digital, though.

You can't eat digital, you can't wear digital, digital alone won't provide you with shelter, digital information alone does not put the bread on the table,

Can you eat 10% more each year?

 

[DBT]

You can't eat digital, you can't wear digital, digital alone won't provide you with shelter, digital information alone does not put the bread on the table,

Can you eat 10% more each year?

- - - Updated - - -

All of those things are physical.

More and more of what we use is digital, though.

You can't eat digital, you can't wear digital, digital alone won't provide you with shelter, digital information alone does not put the bread on the table,

Can you eat 10% more each year?

What is the point?

 

[barbos]

What is the point?

Point is, economic growth does not have to be in food industry.
It could be in entertainment industry (games, movies), something which is not exactly material.

 

[bigfield]

What is the point?

Point is, economic growth does not have to be in food industry.
It could be in entertainment industry (games, movies), something which is not exactly material.

The self-sufficient services fallacy: the belief that it does not require the consumption of materials in order to produce services.

 

[barbos]

Point is, economic growth does not have to be in food industry.
It could be in entertainment industry (games, movies), something which is not exactly material.

The self-sufficient services fallacy: the belief that it does not require the consumption of materials in order to produce services.

Nobody said that game industry is self-sufficient, but these fatass game developers eat the same amount of material food regardless of how many games they make.

 

[bigfield]

The self-sufficient services fallacy: the belief that it does not require the consumption of materials in order to produce services.

Nobody said that game industry is self-sufficient, but these fatass game developers eat the same amount of material food regardless of how many games they make.

You specifically mentioned games and movies.

Game development consumes electricity, offices and office supplies, IT and communications hardware and services, multimedia production technology and services, product manufacture and packaging, distribution services, promotional products and services, and merchandising, plus other things.

Movie production consumes much of the same, plus set and prop production, vehicles and fuel, temporary accommodation, and a folding chair for the producer.

Both of the above industries consume material in proportion to the number of entertainment products they produce. Less games and movies, less energy and supplies required.

The point being that digital products are no different from material products, in that they consume materials in order to be produced, and producing more of these things consumes more materials.

 

[barbos]

Nobody said that game industry is self-sufficient, but these fatass game developers eat the same amount of material food regardless of how many games they make.

You specifically mentioned games and movies.

Game development consumes electricity, offices and office supplies, IT and communications hardware and services, multimedia production technology and services, product manufacture and packaging, distribution services, promotional products and services, and merchandising, plus other things.

Movie production consumes much of the same, plus set and prop production, vehicles and fuel, temporary accommodation, and a folding chair for the producer.

Both of the above industries consume material in proportion to the number of entertainment products they produce. Less games and movies, less energy and supplies required.

The point being that digital products are no different from material products, in that they consume materials in order to be produced, and producing more of these things consumes more materials.

Material costs are totally inconsequential to game developers and pretty inconsequential to movies. The core activity in both businesses has nothing to do with material input and resulting product is not material, it's information.
So for a given amount of material games and movies produce much higher amount of GDP.