Is the economic growth model sustainable?

[bilby]

I zee bilby's disconnect.

Many things are evaluated per capita. It is a common term. Rape per capita says nothing about causes of rape.

Growth per capita is just that, a metric of growth. It says nothing about what growth is based on.

Market saturation as DBT put it. That is the reason Microsoft periodically finds a way to obsolter Windows versions. If not the company dies. Same with Apple getting caught slowing down older devices.

In the 80s and 90s computer market saturation reduced prices for computers. IBM sold off its PC.

There's no 'disconnect'. Just logic, mathematics and facts.

I have presented a simple and actual example of the thing you claim is impossible.

You have made no attempt whatsoever to even address my refutation of your claim.

You are just wrong. In error. Incorrect. Factually lacking. Your position rests upon a false premise.

I understand that you believe your bullshit; But this is supposed to be a science forum. Believing doesn't allow you to ignore the facts around here.

Do you deny that Germany experienced simultaneous economic growth and population decline over a period of seven years? Or do you withdraw your claim that such a thing is impossible?

 

[Bomb#20]

We are not going to run out of Phosphorus, any more than we are going to run out of bacon - despite world bacon reserves being barely sufficient to meet the next few days of demand.

Mmm. Bacon.

Oh, sorry, got distracted there. What I meant to say was, Bilby is clearly correct and the people arguing with him are in the grip of delusional economic models.

 

[Peez]

I zee bilby's disconnect.

Many things are evaluated per capita. It is a common term. Rape per capita says nothing about causes of rape.

Growth per capita is just that, a metric of growth. It says nothing about what growth is based on.

Market saturation as DBT put it. That is the reason Microsoft periodically finds a way to obsolter Windows versions. If not the company dies. Same with Apple getting caught slowing down older devices.

In the 80s and 90s computer market saturation reduced prices for computers. IBM sold off its PC.

There's no 'disconnect'. Just logic, mathematics and facts.

I have presented a simple and actual example of the thing you claim is impossible.

You have made no attempt whatsoever to even address my refutation of your claim.

You are just wrong. In error. Incorrect. Factually lacking. Your position rests upon a false premise.

I understand that you believe your bullshit; But this is supposed to be a science forum. Believing doesn't allow you to ignore the facts around here.

Do you deny that Germany experienced simultaneous economic growth and population decline over a period of seven years? Or do you withdraw your claim that such a thing is impossible?

Although I have always had the vague sense that our current economic system has an unhealthy reliance on population growth, I do not know much about it and certainly cannot field any sort of coherent argument one way or the other. That being said, the example of Germany here seems odd to me. Since Germany is not economically isolated from the rest of the world, I don't see how economic growth in Germany while population declined in Germany can be taken as evidence against the general hypothesis that economic growth requires population growth, because it seems possible that the German economic growth during that time could have been drive by population growth in other parts of the world. Am I missing something?

Peez

 

[bilby]

I zee bilby's disconnect.

Many things are evaluated per capita. It is a common term. Rape per capita says nothing about causes of rape.

Growth per capita is just that, a metric of growth. It says nothing about what growth is based on.

Market saturation as DBT put it. That is the reason Microsoft periodically finds a way to obsolter Windows versions. If not the company dies. Same with Apple getting caught slowing down older devices.

In the 80s and 90s computer market saturation reduced prices for computers. IBM sold off its PC.

There's no 'disconnect'. Just logic, mathematics and facts.

I have presented a simple and actual example of the thing you claim is impossible.

You have made no attempt whatsoever to even address my refutation of your claim.

You are just wrong. In error. Incorrect. Factually lacking. Your position rests upon a false premise.

I understand that you believe your bullshit; But this is supposed to be a science forum. Believing doesn't allow you to ignore the facts around here.

Do you deny that Germany experienced simultaneous economic growth and population decline over a period of seven years? Or do you withdraw your claim that such a thing is impossible?

Although I have always had the vague sense that our current economic system has an unhealthy reliance on population growth, I do not know much about it and certainly cannot field any sort of coherent argument one way or the other. That being said, the example of Germany here seems odd to me. Since Germany is not economically isolated from the rest of the world, I don't see how economic growth in Germany while population declined in Germany can be taken as evidence against the general hypothesis that economic growth requires population growth, because it seems possible that the German economic growth during that time could have been drive by population growth in other parts of the world. Am I missing something?

Peez

Sure, it could be. It's nice to see someone actually address my argument rationally too.

Of course, that one example might have exactly the flaw you describe.

However the claim that population growth is required for economic growth remains false; the total value of an economy is not constrained by the number of people in it, simply because there's no set value a single person can produce in an economy.

Imagine an economy of one person. If that person can produce more tomorrow than he did yesterday, (or more next year than last year) while still remaining just one person, then the claim that economic growth requires population growth must be false.

The example of Germany might be flawed, in exactly the way you describe. But the fact remains that population and the value of an economy are not sufficiently closely coupled as to make the OP claim a possibility.

 

[steve_bank]

ok, maybe disconnect is not the right term. Cognitive dissonance may be a better description.

Are you arguing that since say 1950 we would have the same or better overall economic growth without population growth? Keep in mind the OP is about the current western economic model, not about alternatives or hypotheticals.

bilby, on what basis do you believe we will be stable with adequate food and water 50 or 100 years from now? That is the OP question.

 

[bilby]

ok, maybe disconnect is not the right term. Cognitive dissonance may be a better description.

Are you arguing that since say 1950 we would have the same or better overall economic growth without population growth?

No.

You need to read my posts a LOT more carefully if you think I might be arguing that.

I am advising you that your absolute claim that population growth is necessary for economic growth is false.

And I am expressing surprise and dismay that you seem incapable of grasping this obvious fact.

Keep in mind the OP is about the current western economic model, not about alternatives or hypotheticals.

bilby, on what basis do you believe we will be stable with adequate food and water 50 or 100 years from now? That is the OP question.

Population is projected to stabilise at around 10 to 12 billion in about the next three decades. And we already produce enough food for that many people today.

Economic growth is not likely to stop; however it may slow somewhat in the developed world.

Even a prolonged and severe recession would not lead to widespread famine in the developed world.

Your prophesy of doom is completely without foundation in reality. Famine has almost entirely disappeared from the world in the last three decades. Water is abundant, and the technology for making it drinkable is simple, widely available, and relatively inexpensive.

Your fears are contrary to fact. You might as well be scared of a zombie apocalypse.

 

[barbos]

Perhaps it would be better to say 'more usefully measured per capita' - 'usually' is rather context dependent.

It's irrelevant to my refutation of the claim that population growth is necessary for economic growth though - both absolute and per capita GDP must grow during a period of declining population in order to refute that claim, and they both did in Germany from 2007 to 2014.

I'm not sure of ancient economies, but modern capitalism is certainly dependent on growth. When you buy a bond or a share of stock, you expect it to increase in value — how can this generally occur without general growth? (In olden days, the wealthy tended to be lenders. Now borrowing is key to wealth. Big oil companies are in big debt despite high profits: Obviously they are dependent on growth. GE has net debt in excess of $400 billion.)

So, yes, modern capitalism makes the assumption of continued growth in consumption; population growth is a way to fuel that growth. Increasingly, scarcity will be an obstacle. As just one example, feeding the huge number of human mouths has become dependent on a diminishing supply of phosphate rock.

There's no scarcity of phosphate. You are confusing a reserve with a resource.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

Reserves grow according to demand. Only resources are finite - but they are both vast, and barely explored. Exploration turns resource into reserve - but nobody will pay to do that while the reserves that are already there are adequate.

We are not going to run out of Phosphorus, any more than we are going to run out of bacon - despite world bacon reserves being barely sufficient to meet the next few days of demand.

I think it's you who confuses reserve with a resource. Despite your belief bacon is not mined.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps it would be better to say 'more usefully measured per capita' - 'usually' is rather context dependent.

It's irrelevant to my refutation of the claim that population growth is necessary for economic growth though - both absolute and per capita GDP must grow during a period of declining population in order to refute that claim, and they both did in Germany from 2007 to 2014.

I'm not sure of ancient economies, but modern capitalism is certainly dependent on growth. When you buy a bond or a share of stock, you expect it to increase in value — how can this generally occur without general growth? (In olden days, the wealthy tended to be lenders. Now borrowing is key to wealth. Big oil companies are in big debt despite high profits: Obviously they are dependent on growth. GE has net debt in excess of $400 billion.)

So, yes, modern capitalism makes the assumption of continued growth in consumption; population growth is a way to fuel that growth. Increasingly, scarcity will be an obstacle. As just one example, feeding the huge number of human mouths has become dependent on a diminishing supply of phosphate rock.

There's no scarcity of phosphate. You are confusing a reserve with a resource.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

Reserves grow according to demand. Only resources are finite - but they are both vast, and barely explored. Exploration turns resource into reserve - but nobody will pay to do that while the reserves that are already there are adequate.

We are not going to run out of Phosphorus, any more than we are going to run out of bacon - despite world bacon reserves being barely sufficient to meet the next few days of demand.

I think it's you who confuses reserve with a resource. Despite your belief bacon is not mined.

You didn't read my link, did you?

 

[barbos]

I think it's you who confuses reserve with a resource. Despite your belief bacon is not mined.

You didn't read my link, did you?

No need to read your links.

 

[bilby]

I think it's you who confuses reserve with a resource. Despite your belief bacon is not mined.

You didn't read my link, did you?

No need to read your links.

Your incomprehension suggests otherwise.

 

[DBT]

We are not going to run out of Phosphorus, any more than we are going to run out of bacon - despite world bacon reserves being barely sufficient to meet the next few days of demand.

Mmm. Bacon.

Oh, sorry, got distracted there. What I meant to say was, Bilby is clearly correct and the people arguing with him are in the grip of delusional economic models.

Market saturation is a fact. It is a fact that a static population can only consume so much, can only own a given number of devices, own a given number of properties (cost of maintenance, etc) use a finite number of services, hence the demand for goods and services, food, entertainment and the rest cannot keep growing.

 

[bilby]

We are not going to run out of Phosphorus, any more than we are going to run out of bacon - despite world bacon reserves being barely sufficient to meet the next few days of demand.

Mmm. Bacon.

Oh, sorry, got distracted there. What I meant to say was, Bilby is clearly correct and the people arguing with him are in the grip of delusional economic models.

Market saturation is a fact. It is a fact that a static population can only consume so much, can only own a given number of devices, own a given number of properties (cost of maintenance, etc) use a finite number of services, hence the demand for goods and services, food, entertainment and the rest cannot keep growing.

It's not a fact.

Look at the stuff a typical householder owned in, say 1978, and compare it to today. Many things are similar in type - but not in value. The stuff people buy today is more valuable ('better') than the similar stuff they had in 1978, and the stuff people buy in 2058 will be more valuable again. Would you be happy with your 1978 car, and your 1978 TV? What about your 1978 computer games console (if you had one back then)?

Do you really think that moving from owning a games console like this to one like this amounts to no increase in value, because in both cases you are the owner of exactly one games console?

 

[DBT]

Market saturation is a fact. It is a fact that a static population can only consume so much, can only own a given number of devices, own a given number of properties (cost of maintenance, etc) use a finite number of services, hence the demand for goods and services, food, entertainment and the rest cannot keep growing.

It's not a fact.

Look at the stuff a typical householder owned in, say 1978, and compare it to today. Many things are similar in type - but not in value. The stuff people buy today is more valuable 'better' than the similar stuff they had in 1978, and the stuff people buy in 2058 will be more valuable again. Would you be happy with your 1978 car, and your 1978 TV? What about your 1978 computer games console (if you had one back then)?

Do you really think that moving from owning a games console like this to one like this amounts to no increase in value, because in both cases you are the owner of exactly one games console?

Yeah, I allowed for that, you can add possible new products and services, up to a point (any given person can only own so much and consume so much) but within a static population this form of growth cannot be maintained in perpetuity. And as I said, development (which is a different proposition to growth) with a steady reliable income stream can be maintained indefinitely.

 

[bilby]

Market saturation is a fact. It is a fact that a static population can only consume so much, can only own a given number of devices, own a given number of properties (cost of maintenance, etc) use a finite number of services, hence the demand for goods and services, food, entertainment and the rest cannot keep growing.

It's not a fact.

Look at the stuff a typical householder owned in, say 1978, and compare it to today. Many things are similar in type - but not in value. The stuff people buy today is more valuable 'better' than the similar stuff they had in 1978, and the stuff people buy in 2058 will be more valuable again. Would you be happy with your 1978 car, and your 1978 TV? What about your 1978 computer games console (if you had one back then)?

Do you really think that moving from owning a games console like this to one like this amounts to no increase in value, because in both cases you are the owner of exactly one games console?

Yeah, I allowed for that, you can add possible new products and services, up to a point (any given person can only own so much and consume so much) but within a static population this form of growth cannot be maintained in perpetuity. And as I said, development (which is a different proposition to growth) with a steady reliable income stream can be maintained indefinitely.

What stops you from growing value indefinitely? Value (and GDP) are measured in dollars. Are we going to run out of dollars? You can't run out of a fiat currency. And the luxuries of today become the normality of tomorrow - always have, always will. There is literally no limit to how much a given person can consume.

 

[barbos]

No need to read your links.

Your incomprehension suggests otherwise.

No, it's your incomprehension. Pigs are renewable resource, Phosphorus (the way it's currently used) is not.

 

[barbos]

Market saturation is a fact. It is a fact that a static population can only consume so much, can only own a given number of devices, own a given number of properties (cost of maintenance, etc) use a finite number of services, hence the demand for goods and services, food, entertainment and the rest cannot keep growing.

It's not a fact.

Look at the stuff a typical householder owned in, say 1978, and compare it to today. Many things are similar in type - but not in value. The stuff people buy today is more valuable 'better' than the similar stuff they had in 1978, and the stuff people buy in 2058 will be more valuable again. Would you be happy with your 1978 car, and your 1978 TV? What about your 1978 computer games console (if you had one back then)?

Do you really think that moving from owning a games console like this to one like this amounts to no increase in value, because in both cases you are the owner of exactly one games console?

Yeah, I allowed for that, you can add possible new products and services, up to a point (any given person can only own so much and consume so much) but within a static population this form of growth cannot be maintained in perpetuity. And as I said, development (which is a different proposition to growth) with a steady reliable income stream can be maintained indefinitely.

He does not understand that there are two ways for economy to grow - intensive and extensive. While developing countries can have extensive growth, developing countries can only do intensive where all the growth is due to progress in efficiency and innovations.

 

[bilby]

No need to read your links.

Your incomprehension suggests otherwise.

No, it's your incomprehension. Pigs are renewable resource, Phosphorus (the way it's currently used) is not.

Pigs are a resource. But bacon is a reserve.

You are willfully ignorant. If you don't care to read my points, don't bother wasting both of our time responding to them.

 

[DBT]

Yeah, I allowed for that, you can add possible new products and services, up to a point (any given person can only own so much and consume so much) but within a static population this form of growth cannot be maintained in perpetuity. And as I said, development (which is a different proposition to growth) with a steady reliable income stream can be maintained indefinitely.

What stops you from growing value indefinitely? Value (and GDP) are measured in dollars. Are we going to run out of dollars? You can't run out of a fiat currency. And the luxuries of today become the normality of tomorrow - always have, always will. There is literally no limit to how much a given person can consume.

How do you grow value without an increasing demand for a product or service? How would growing value look within a static/stable world population?

 

[fromderinside]

The market demands also change with changes in market products. Suggesting one is static whilst the other improves is not realistic nor reflective of market conditions. A better phone demands more skills to use the phone and changes in workforce brought on by phone increases in supplying certain demands at the very least. Modeling otherwise is not realistic.

 

[barbos]

No, it's your incomprehension. Pigs are renewable resource, Phosphorus (the way it's currently used) is not.

Pigs are a resource. But bacon is a reserve.

Pigs are walking bacon

You are willfully ignorant. If you don't care to read my points, don't bother wasting both of our time responding to them.

No, it's not me, it's you.