The "growth economy" is not sustainable.

[eyeball]

People really underestimate the available resources, both on Earth and elsewhere. The reality is there are many types of resources we have not yet even begun to exploit (we have not tapped even a tiny fraction of the energy available for example: solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, fusion). We have plenty of room for centuries of continued growth.

If Cornucopia is a device just waiting for some mythical innovator to respond to the demand for it...now would be a good time.

Seems to me we're cutting an awfully fine line between a technological-singularity and an economic black-hole.

[Tilter]

yes I am not worried about the survival of the earth but of us. The blip that we are has given mother earth a bad case of indigestion and she may purge us to cleanse herself.

But assuming that isn't imminent ... is there an alternative to the 'growth economy' model so we can live here sustainably? Is human life on earth self limiting because we are dependent on growth?

OR ... is that just a bad economic model?

Not really limited--- Man's population grows to where it becomes non-sustainable, --- Millions (or billions) starve, (population decreases) human life again becomes sustainable--------------- Man's population grows to where it becomes non-sustainable, --- Millions (or billions) starve, (population decreases) human life again becomes sustainable---- ETC.

We are now on the edge with the Mid-East helping in the population decline by killing off the weak.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Tilter

[Oleg Bach]

I didn't know that Prince was Canadian..amazing!

Sorry I thought it was kravits you were talking about...although Prince did have a residence in Toronto for a while.

[Sir Bandelot]

If Cornucopia is a device just waiting for some mythical innovator to respond to the demand for it...now would be a good time.

For some, technology is the messiah. For others, the messiah is the messiah.

[Oleg Bach]

Growth should just be a busy populace. Not everyone is going to benefit economically through so-called growth. People must change their attitude about money and understand that sometimes you do things out of social benevolence. If I was not productive my dad would say to me, "do something - do anything" ....He also taught us that you can work for nothing until your services become indespensable - then you can start charging a fee. Growth should also mean civil growth where we live in peace and security - and that becomes part of our wealth.

As for sheer economic growth..It is NOT sustainable in the end game. As people earn more - they are charged more for goods and services. Eventually inflation kicks in - more useless money is printed..and before you know it we are all rich! - then suddenly poor again. There are limits - economy must be based in physics..making something out of nothing or getting something for doing nothing, defys natural laws.

One of our biggest downfalls is this over dependance on information technology. It is only relevant when that information is turned into phyical profit - materal gain. A society can not sustain indefinetly on selling information to buy more information - It is like to old ladies gabbing on the phone - or like pouring one glass of water into an empty glass then back again. Someone will always have the empty glass and after you take in the spillage factor - everyone will eventually go thirsty.

Information is not power - a hammer and a nail driven with phyical force is real power.

[jacee]

http://www.eveoftheapoc.com.au/Downloads/TheFatalTrap.htm

At the current growth ratios of economies to debt, within three decades the annual global increase of debt will be larger than the gross global income. This is not conjecture, it is simple mathematics. Clearly the global economy will collapse long before this ridiculous scenario arrives. Unless fundamental changes are made to the present economic system, in less than two decades the global economy will destroy itself. No amount of productivity, foreign trade, gold mining, hard work or anything else can change that fact.

Some food for thought ...

and here:

http://www.eveoftheapoc.com.au/Downloads/DebtVsGrowth.html

Because global debt increases exponentially 6% faster than the global economy, debt will quickly smother the economy by demanding its entire output merely in interest payment.

And ...

Economic growth is not for the benefit of the average person benefit of the average person as is commonly believed as is commonly believed. Economic growth is solely to create enough currency to keep the faulty global economy treading water so it doesn't collapse.

Well now that I've learned something I feel better. We have about 9 years before collapse.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

http://www.eveoftheapoc.com.au/Downloads/TheFatalTrap.htm

Some food for thought ...

and here:

http://www.eveoftheapoc.com.au/Downloads/DebtVsGrowth.html

And ...

Well now that I've learned something I feel better. We have about 9 years before collapse.

Not that I believe the numbers of your source aren't manipulated, but this is something conservatives have known for a long time. Conservatives have always been called for spending cuts. The thing the left doesn't understand is that complete equality itself isn't sustainable.

The society we live in punishes the successful and wealthy to prop up the poor. It's completely contrary to the darwinism and evolution that the left champions so much.

We have created a reverse darwinism society where the poor propagate and flourish off of the wealth of the rich, and we borrow from China to sustain this broken model.

As much as it makes you warm and fuzzy to think about a society where every person has equal opportunity to succeed, the reality is that kind of society is unsustainable. In fact, we are propping up a bastardization of that society off the borderline slave labour of billions of foreign workers. It's so hypocritical, it's comical.

[bloodyminded]

Not that I believe the numbers of your source aren't manipulated, but this is something conservatives have known for a long time. Conservatives have always been called for spending cuts. The thing the left doesn't understand is that complete equality itself isn't sustainable.

The society we live in punishes the successful and wealthy to prop up the poor.

In that case, there wouldn't be more successful and wealthy people right now than ever in the history of all civilization. They are not punished, but rewarded...that's why there's (relatively) so many of them now.

It's completely contrary to the darwinism and evolution that the left champions so much.

First of all, not it's not, that's a logical fallacy; second, "the left" doesn't champion the theory of evolution; it's a scientific consensus.

We have created a reverse darwinism society where the poor propagate and flourish off of the wealth of the rich,

So, the poor are flourishing, and the rich are suffering intense victimization.

Alrighty. That's a fascinating hypothesis.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

So, the poor are flourishing, and the rich are suffering intense victimization.

Alrighty. That's a fascinating hypothesis.

Yes, the poor in western societies are flourishing by taxing the rich and borrowing from China. That is the world we live in. Have you been living under a rock?

[bloodyminded]

Yes, the poor in western societies are flourishing by taxing the rich and borrowing from China. That is the world we live in. Have you been living under a rock?

That I disagree about the flourishing poor and the victimized, deprived lives of the wealthy says nothing at all about where I've been living.

And do you think that all the borrowing from China has been done in the name of the poor?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, the poor in western societies are flourishing by taxing the rich and borrowing from China. That is the world we live in. Have you been living under a rock?

You have a very strange perspective.

By all accounts the top 1% of earners are doing far better than the population as a whole, and economic gains are going to them more than in the past.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, the more that the poor victimize the rich--via China, I guess is the thesis--the greater the rich's gains.

An odd theory, but ok....

[CPCFTW]

That I disagree about the flourishing poor and the victimized, deprived lives of the wealthy says nothing at all about where I've been living.

And do you think that all the borrowing from China has been done in the name of the poor?

Who said anything about victimized and deprived? I said we punish the wealthy by demonizing them and increasing taxes on them pursuing more success. Of course they're still better off than the poor no matter how much people like you try to change that.

See, I think that the wealthy would do a better job of allocating their wealth than the government. The left believes in the divine hand of the government, I believe in the impartial hand of the market.

Give 50 billion to government and spend 20 billion on government bureaucratic jobs and 30 billion on handouts to the unemployed (and then borrow another 50 billion to create more government jobs and fund more handouts). Give 50 billion to the market and maybe 10 billion will go to the capital allocators (financial advisors, portfolio managers, etc.), and 40 billion will go to creating jobs or increasing productivity through capital expenditure. There are no free lunches in the market.

Edited September 6, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bloodyminded]

Who said anything about victimized and deprived? I said we punish the wealthy by demonizing them and increasing taxes on them pursuing more success.

And yet they continue to increase their wealth. So the system is a success by your own standards.

Of course they're still better off than the poor no matter how much people like you try to change that.

"People like me."

You mean those of us who don't think Ayn Rand was a genius. Bunch of heretics.

Since you are confessing (albeit accidentally) that you have no idea of what I think about it, it's odd that you'd invent my own opinions for me. But if it makes you happy....

See, I think that the wealthy would do a better job of allocating their wealth than the government. The left believes in the divine hand of the government, I believe in the impartial hand of the market.

The government and big business are quite inextricably combined, so your notion of some combative relationship is misinformed.

Give 50 billion to government and spend 20 billion on government bureaucratic jobs and 30 billion on handouts to the unemployed (and then borrow another 50 billion to create more government jobs and fund more handouts). Give 50 billion to the market and maybe 10 billion will go to the capital allocators (financial advisors, portfolio managers, etc.), and 40 billion will go to creating jobs or increasing productivity through capital expenditure. There are no free lunches in the market.

There are no free lunches in some mythical market that doesn't exist and never has. As it stands, "the market" depends absolutely on public monies, notably in the realm of tax-based infrastructure.

You're letting a simplistic view of economic theory trump reality itself. Why, I don't know.

[CPCFTW]

And yet they continue to increase their wealth. So the system is a success by your own standards.

"People like me."

You mean those of us who don't think Ayn Rand was a genius. Bunch of heretics.

Since you are confessing (albeit accidentally) that you have no idea of what I think about it, it's odd that you'd invent my own opinions for me. But if it makes you happy....

The government and big business are quite inextricably combined, so your notion of some combative relationship is misinformed.

There are no free lunches in some mythical market that doesn't exist and never has. As it stands, "the market" depends absolutely on public monies, notably in the realm of tax-based infrastructure.

You're letting a simplistic view of economic theory trump reality itself. Why, I don't know.

None of that infrastructure is dependent on hand outs to the poor, lazy, and unemployed. Let people keep that money and invest it into corporate stocks and bonds to fund job creation or production improvements.

I believe that, outside of the handicapped (mentally and physically), people should be working regardless of whatever arbitrary notion of a "living wage" the lefties have. There's no reason Japan should be making most of the world's cars and Taiwan and Korea should be making most of the world's computer parts, and China should be making most of everything else while 10% of Americans are unemployed and living off of borrowed money from the Chinese. It's just ridiculous. We pay them to make our shit and take our jobs, then borrow that money back to pay for our unemployed. Let the people work!

[jacee]

Yes, the poor in western societies are flourishing by taxing the rich and borrowing from China. That is the world we live in. Have you been living under a rock?

1) Show me evidence of the poor "flourishing".

2) Show me evidence of the rich being "punished".

3) Show me the rock you've been living under.

4) Show me what $2b per year in corporate welfare has done for the poor.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

1) Show me evidence of the poor "flourishing".

2) Show me evidence of the rich "suffering".

3) Show me the rock you've been living under.

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/TorontoDivided-PolarizingTrends-TDSB-January2010.pdf

[bloodyminded]

None of that infrastructure is dependent on hand outs to the poor, lazy, and unemployed.

OK, but now you're shifting your arguments around.

Let people keep that money and invest it into corporate stocks and bonds to fund job creation or production improvements.

But tax money goes to a lot of things besides aiding the poor.

Why is that one your only objection?

I believe that, outside of the handicapped (mentally and physically), people should be working regardless of whatever arbitrary notion of a "living wage" the lefties have. There's no reason Japan should be making most of the world's cars and Taiwan and Korea should be making most of the world's computer parts, and China should be making most of everything else while 10% of Americans are unemployed and living off of borrowed money from the Chinese. It's just ridiculous. We pay them to make our shit and take our jobs, then borrow that money back to pay for our unemployed. Let the people work!

The outsourcing was not demanded by the working poor; it was demanded by the wealthy businesses who wished for cheaper labour.

Are the wealthy the only people you feel should not be taking "personal responsibility" for their own actions?

Why hold them to lower standards than you do "the lazy poor"?

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/TorontoDivided-PolarizingTrends-TDSB-January2010.pdf

Not sure what you're trying to show with this.

Can you excerpt the point that you're trying to make in response to jacee ?

[CPCFTW]

OK, but now you're shifting your arguments around.

But tax money goes to a lot of things besides aiding the poor.

Why is that one your only objection?

The outsourcing was not demanded by the working poor; it was demanded by the wealthy businesses who wished for cheaper labour.

Are the wealthy the only people you feel should not be taking "personal responsibility" for their own actions?

Why hold them to lower standards than you do "the lazy poor"?

That was not an argument against outsourcing, it was an argument against minimum wages and unionization which has destroyed our manufacturing sector.

[bloodyminded]

That was not an argument against outsourcing, it was an argument against minimum wages and unionization which has destroyed our manufacturing sector.

Yes, that's my point: you believe that all economic problems stem from taxes used for the working poor/lower income folks.

[maple_leafs182]

This is a direct challenge to the economists, financiers, industrialists and business community to explain why it all depends on continued "growthgrowthgrowth" forever and ever. As an economic theory that has driven policy and practice in the past, maybe ... but it makes absolutely no. sense to me NOW as we know it is a impossibility.

The earth is getting tired, overworked, worn out, depleted of what we've narcissistically called 'resources', that are in fact the earth's survival systems. Example - gravel: We dig it out relentlessly, paying no attention to the fact that it is necessary to filter and clean and purify the groundwater, rivers lakes and streams of fresh water that the earth provides for our survival. In Southern Ontario, a predatory company purchased several thousand acres over the years, ostensibly for a huge soybean farm. However now they have revealed that their real intent is to build a huge open pit gravel mine. The property is gravel moraine, critical to all of the water systems of S Ont.

That's just one example of the unsustainable 'growth economy' that ultimately cannot sustain human life. WE CANNOT EAT OR DRINK MONEY.

What happens to the growth economy when the people are gone? Do the economists have any ideas for an economy that sustains human life here on earth? Do they comprehend the collision course we are on? Do they have any different ideas?

We cannot continue to blindly believe the moneybags like our parents were brainwashed to, when we know it isn't our interests but their own they pursue and they are driving us to a precipice from which there is no return.

What else does the financial/economist mentality have to offer us that is viable theory and practice for the future?

OR ... should we just ignore them? Stop them? Somehow create our own economy that is not dependent on depletion of the earth?

??

You are right. Economist aren't really economists...if you look at the definition of what it means to economize "To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures". What we call economist today, all these economist know how to do is study monetary patterns, economist know nothing about how to try and reduce waste. If we want to have a sustainable economy which I think we should work towards, the solution isn't to simply lower the population as many people have suggested, what we need to do is have engineers and scientist at the forefront of the economic decisions we make as a community and the greater society. Right now we have politicians and businessmen at the forefront, they have no understanding of how to create a sustainable economy. We need a radical change in the way we think and our value system but I don't think people are ready to make that change, we are not educated enough about the state of our technology.

[Michael Hardner]

That was not an argument against outsourcing, it was an argument against minimum wages and unionization which has destroyed our manufacturing sector.

I agree that if we eliminated the minimum wage, some manufacturing jobs would come back.

This is also known as 'the race to the bottom'.

[CPCFTW]

Not sure what you're trying to show with this.

Can you excerpt the point that you're trying to make in response to jacee ?

Pretty simple. Look at the 1970 and 2005 bars on slide 13.

15% above average income, 66% average, 19% below average in 1970.

19% above average, 29% average, 52% below average in 2005.

Looks like the poor are flourishing to me. The only people who can escape the gravitational pull of poverty in the borderline socialist framework we live in are the very affluent/successful or government elites (aka bus drivers and other municipal/provincial/federal government employees).

[CPCFTW]

I agree that if we eliminated the minimum wage, some manufacturing jobs would come back.

This is also known as 'the race to the bottom'.

The options are to let our poor work for less than minimum wage and rebuild our manufacturing sector, or to continue to pay Chinese workers to manufacture for us while simultaneously borrowing from China to pay our unemployed a 'living wage'.

Your way results in an economic collapse under the weight of the debt. When the inevitable rapid devaluation of our currency occurs, EVERYONE will be working for less than minimum wage in real terms anyways but the western world will have much more debt to pay off.

Edited September 6, 2011 by CPCFTW