The World's First Trillionaire

[eyeball]

Did better than, say, the pre-industrial age... which was better than the age before that and so on.

Prosperity benefits all of human kind over the long term...

Maybe while you still have a planet for the taking but once that starts to run out...

Notwithstanding the luxuries the odd triIlionaire might live to realize I think it's safe to say we're probably leaving humanity's halcyon days behind us.

[eyeball]

I think if we could only have gotten a handle on the corruption that wealth and power generate we might been contenders.

[August1991]

That's bullocks. The world isn't much more "fair" in terms of wealth. Yes, standard of living for most people in the world has gone up over the last 30-40 years...but whose standard of living has increased the most over that time, the top 1% wealth owners or the bottom 99% or so?

You are dead wrong, Moonlight. The poor people of China and India (two examples) are far better off now than 40 years ago. In world terms, the poorest of the poor are getting richer.

As to the top 1%, you seem to care. Why? [Maybe you're in the top 10% and are simply jealous.]

Well, it's true that the average standard of living in the poor masses in India and China have approved but at what cost?

• Their countries have been terribly polluted
• The low wages have killed middle class jobs in developed countries
• Even worse, the low wages retard development of labour-saving equipment

Geez ReeferMadness, why not add the end of the family, newspapers and daily milk delivery to your list?

----

Old-style leftist Western politicians may claim that there is a greater income divide in the West now than 30 years ago. (I would dispute that claim but anyway... )

But by any measure, the world as a whole is far more egalitarian than 50 years ago.

IOW, the Gini coefficient of the world in 2013 has never been closer to zero.

The really brutal thing is that all that wealth concentration could not happen without...

Dre, you suffer from zero-sum thinking.

As much as I hate Windows 8, I must admit that Bill Gates is not wealthy because others are poor.

Edited November 27, 2013 by August1991

[dre]

You are dead wrong, Moonlight. The poor people of China and India (two examples) are far better off now than 40 years ago. In world terms, the poorest of the poor are getting richer.

The lives of the 99% have been improving steadily for 200 years, and they improved faster when wealth was not concentrating.

As to the top 1%, you seem to care. Why?

I dunno? Why did people care when a single royal family owned everything? Why have they risen up against every aristocracy that has ever existed?

I personally care because a system that concentrates wealth is inherently unstable and wont last, and they often end in ways that are very brutal and destructive for everyone, rich and poor alike.

And like I said... for every single dollar the super wealthy accumulates the rest of us OWES a dollar. All this wealth concentration has resulted in public and private debt that is almost impossible to ever extinguish.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Dre, you suffer from zero-sum thinking.

As much as I hate Windows 8, I must admit that Bill Gates is not wealthy because others are poor.

No I suffer from THINKING period.

If you are going to invoke Bill Gates, then lets hear what he has to say....

GATES: The huge disparity in wealth that's happening, is something that is, I think, really dangerous.

MOYERS: Why?

GATES: Wealth is power, Bill. And it just is not a good situation. And the examples of the aristocracies of Europe are so clear. We don't want to have a country like that. Who was it that said, it was Louis Brandeis who said...

MOYERS: Justice of the Supreme Court...

GATES: Yes, indeed. And he said, you know, we can either have a situation where we have a small number of people with a huge amount of wealth or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both. That's clear wisdom.

MOYERS: Are we living in a new gilded age...do you fear that we're living in that kind of time again?

GATES: I do. I do. You know, the data is very clear. We have this enormous accretion of wealth in the top levels, and it's hugely out of balance. The disparity is very disturbing.

GATES: We can either have a situation where we have a small number of people with a huge amount of wealth or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both.

And thats the point people like you fail to grasp. Democracy requires a certain ammount of egalitarianism to function. Its fine to have a profit motive, and its fine to have rich people and poor people. But when the system and the rules of the system, make it too easy to make money simply by having money, and when the rules of the system cause massive concentration of wealth, that in time will mean concentration of political power as well.

The problem of course is that people like you (and me) have never had a hard day in their lives. We have never had to fight for anything, and we have forgotten the battles that common people had to fight against wealth concentrators in order to have a good life... Monarchs, dictators, aristocracies, autocracies, plutocracy and so on.

Advocating a system that allows wealth to concentrate in to the hands of a few people is advocating for plutocracy and a form of slavery.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe while you still have a planet for the taking but once that starts to run out...

Notwithstanding the luxuries the odd triIlionaire might live to realize I think it's safe to say we're probably leaving humanity's halcyon days behind us.

The odd paradox is that economic growth can only proceed as long as we have poor people to bring into our system... once we stop mining Africans and Asians to come here, ie. once they run out, then consumption and corresponding waste will fall.

What will happen then ? Depending on whom you listen to - the final end of all that is good, or the beginning of heaven on earth. Both are likely wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

IOW, the Gini coefficient of the world in 2013 has never been closer to zero.

Bully for you, Auguste ! ( As Teddy used to say...) This argument is in sore need of METRICS...

We may generally disagree, but if we agree to use some universal metrics as guideposts it will help us speak the same language when it comes to solutions, and especially hybrid solutions.

[cybercoma]

The really brutal thing is that all that wealth concentration could not happen without massive monetary expansion, and virtually all monetary expansion happens through the extension of debt/credit. In other words for every single dollar that has been concentrated into the hands of the wealthy, the general public now OWES a dollar. We will be working for generations in order to fund the incredible wealth marshaled by a small group of people.

owes a dollar plus interest, which is not created through expansion. It's impossible to escape.

[eyeball]

The odd paradox is that economic growth can only proceed as long as we have poor people to bring into our system... once we stop mining Africans and Asians to come here, ie. once they run out, then consumption and corresponding waste will fall.

What will happen then ? Depending on whom you listen to - the final end of all that is good, or the beginning of heaven on earth. Both are likely wrong.

What's really odd is how you so consistently manage to treat the economy and the real world like mutually exclusive things.

Anyhow what will happen once things in that world run out is a dieback, of both biological diversity and the sheer numbers of creatures including us. Earth will keep spinning away for billions of years and I'm sure there will even still be some good times happening somewhere but just nowhere near the scale we're accustomed to. It will seem like a meagre existence for a century or so but we'll get used to the new state of normal and after a few millions of years of speciation things might become optimal again for a new economic civilization to arise.

It's like dre's point about the way wealth concentration always ends badly, our species has bent or concentrated all the world's opportunities towards itself to the exclusion of many other organisms and eventually that's going to bite us on the ass, probably hard.

[Bonam]

The odd paradox is that economic growth can only proceed as long as we have poor people to bring into our system...

Any evidence to support this statement? Sounds like nonsense to me.

[Michael Hardner]

Any evidence to support this statement? Sounds like nonsense to me.

If your population declines, then your economy will. If you don't have immigration in EU and US/Canada then your population will decline.

[TimG]

If your population declines, then your economy will. If you don't have immigration in EU and US/Canada then your population will decline.

Per capita GDP can rise while population falls. This is what has happened in Japan. OTOH - nominal GDP is shrinking so you are right. Total GDP is not a good measure of well being. Edited November 27, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

If your population declines, then your economy will. If you don't have immigration in EU and US/Canada then your population will decline.

Thats the problem with the growth game. The worlds population is expected to peak relatively soon then decline. We will need a new kind of economic system that doesnt create a requirement for constant and exponential growth. These will be interesting times.

Having said that... thats not necessarily a reason to be pessimistic. Theres no reason a static population cant enjoy good lives. They can still make things for each other, grow food for each each other, trade goods and services with each other.

[Bonam]

If your population declines, then your economy will.

I asked for evidence, not your opinion.

[TimG]

Having said that... thats not necessarily a reason to be pessimistic. Theres no reason a static population cant enjoy good lives. They can still make things for each other, grow food for each each other, trade goods and services with each other.

Look to Japan - a lot has been made of their relative decline in absolute GDP but in per capita terms their wealth continues to increase.

[dre]

Look to Japan - a lot has been made of their relative decline in absolute GDP but in per capita terms their wealth continues to increase.

Japan has been in recession. Industrial output has fallen faster that the population has declined. Capital expenditures have fallen dramatically as well, and they are way to dependant on exports.

But you are right... Despite some problems life goes on.

[TimG]

Japan has been in recession. Industrial output has fallen faster that the population has declined. Capital expenditures have fallen dramatically as well, and they are way to dependant on exports.

1) recession comes with declining population because GDP shrinks.

2) industrial output can indicate a shift to services oriented economy - not a decline in well being.

3) capital expenditures will drop because you don't need to build as many new houses/roads/stores if population drops.

We need to think about our metrics - the traditional ones don't apply as soon as population starts to decline.

[Michael Hardner]

I asked for evidence, not your opinion.

I think TimG posted one...

[Michael Hardner]

Thats the problem with the growth game. The worlds population is expected to peak relatively soon then decline. We will need a new kind of economic system that doesnt create a requirement for constant and exponential growth.

I think that the system is starting to change anyway, with a new non-money economy powered by Star Ratings and Facebook likes...

[Bonam]

I think TimG posted one...

Posted one what? For one who constantly demands a high standard of evidence from other posters in their arguments and denounces "everyone knows..." type arguments, you sure seem hesitant to back up your statement yourself.

Now, personally, I think that population growth is necessary to the long term longevity and survival of a civilization, however, there is no reason at all to believe that it is necessary for economic growth on the timescales on which we usually consider economic growth (years-decades), and we have several counterexamples in fact proving that economic growth is possible even while population declines.

[TimG]

Now, personally, I think that population growth is necessary to the long term longevity and survival of a civilization

Population needs to be stable in the long term. Growth is not necessary. Eventually, all human societies will start shrinking and policies will need to brought in place to stabilize population.

[dre]

Now, personally, I think that population growth is necessary to the long term longevity and survival of a civilization

I dont think so. But it necessarily for an ever increasing standards of life. If you look at a country like Canada though, we have the capacity to sustain ourselves with a static population. We have enought arable land to grow the food we need, enough trees to build the shelter we need, and enough energy to supply our own needs.

We will just have a different kind of economy, and we will need a new economic system. One with a lot less overhead, and probably some form of semi-permanent currency.

[Bonam]

Population needs to be stable in the long term. Growth is not necessary. Eventually, all human societies will start shrinking and policies will need to brought in place to stabilize population.

I do not think that is true. Regardless of technological advances, humankind can survive and prosper on Earth only for a finite period of time. The only long term path for human civilization to survive and continue to progress is by expanding outward, and as we settle and populate multiple planets and solar systems, total human population will continue to grow. If we fail to achieve this, then, inhabiting only one planet, some disaster or cosmic catastrophe will wipe us out sooner or later. Here, I am talking about long time scales (centuries+); what you say is true for shorter timescales.

[Michael Hardner]

Posted one what? For one who constantly demands a high standard of evidence from other posters in their arguments and denounces "everyone knows..." type arguments, you sure seem hesitant to back up your statement yourself.

An example - Japan. Look, economics and real world (real physical world, or the world of human activity) is very difficult to model, so you will never ever have proof of certain things like Climate Change, causes of cancer, and economic effects.

Furthermore, I am far from an economic expert. However I'm trying to use the forum to learn about such things.

Now, personally, I think that population growth is necessary to the long term longevity and survival of a civilization, however, there is no reason at all to believe that it is necessary for economic growth on the timescales on which we usually consider economic growth (years-decades), and we have several counterexamples in fact proving that economic growth is possible even while population declines.

Ok - please provide those, I'd be interested to look at them.

[TimG]

The only long term path for human civilization to survive and continue to progress is by expanding outward, and as we settle and populate multiple planets and solar systems

I see engineering as a iterative process where designs are put into the field, monitored and refined. The are cases where getting it right the first time is important (e.g. nuclear plants) but these cases depend on a infinite supply of replacement components. Sending humans on journeys to planets that will take decades - if not centuries it not likely to be viable because of the time frames involved make iterative engineering design impossible. Of course, such constraints go away if some form of ad-hoc faster than light travel is discovered but given the current understanding of physics that is not likely.

IOW - If our population does not stabilize/decline then society will eventually collapse. If it stabilizes then nuclear power can keep it going indefinitely.

Edited November 28, 2013 by TimG