Bean however has a sort of point Mr. Bill.
I just saw the Taleeb interview on PBS and the globalized overoptimized banking/ trade/ capitalistic system is stretched to the max and bound to collapse according to the Black Swan author basing that on Mandelbrot's mathematics. So a locally flexible small market nonindustrial type of system would offer magnitudes of flexibility for system as we could not quickly reach limits of resources and a collapse in one place would not effect the system somewhere else.
PeakOil is You
The Folly of Growth - New Scientist
Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist
by galacticsurfer » Tue 28 Oct 2008, 09:16:09
"The horror, the horror"
-
galacticsurfer - Coal
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Wed 09 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist
by MrBean » Tue 28 Oct 2008, 09:22:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'A') free market system by itself might not lead inevitably to perpetual growth, however, I think that it will always have an inherent pressure to growth, as millions of individual players will always be trying to better themselves, expand their businesses. With no regulation, and ready access to resources it will result in a steady growth in the right circumstances.
Most would agree that too much government regulation is a bad thing and its very harmful for the economy. How about the government only regulates the usuage of scarce and non renewable resources?
But I hate the idea of some bureaucrat liscensing out energy or raw material permits to the industry; that is almost a guarantee of corruption and cronyism.
Another option is trusts that act for the local community. They would not fall under the federal government, but would be responsible to the local community that elects them to safeguard the environment and resources that fall in that area. Any businesses operating in this area would have to pay the necessary fees to operate in that area, corresponding to the resources they use of pollutants they emit. The draw back is that this might not work on the global scale, many communities might choose short term greed over long term care of the environment, and might not really change the status quo.
We could also leave it to the free market. But the consequences of that are pretty clear right now; I dont really need to go into it.
Will individuals themselves be sustainable minded? Not until our culture and value system dramitically changes.
I feel depressed after writing that.
Most would agree that too much government regulation is a bad thing and its very harmful for the economy. How about the government only regulates the usuage of scarce and non renewable resources?
But I hate the idea of some bureaucrat liscensing out energy or raw material permits to the industry; that is almost a guarantee of corruption and cronyism.
Another option is trusts that act for the local community. They would not fall under the federal government, but would be responsible to the local community that elects them to safeguard the environment and resources that fall in that area. Any businesses operating in this area would have to pay the necessary fees to operate in that area, corresponding to the resources they use of pollutants they emit. The draw back is that this might not work on the global scale, many communities might choose short term greed over long term care of the environment, and might not really change the status quo.
We could also leave it to the free market. But the consequences of that are pretty clear right now; I dont really need to go into it.
Will individuals themselves be sustainable minded? Not until our culture and value system dramitically changes.
I feel depressed after writing that.
Economics, dogmatic religion stating that all human behaviour reduces into motives of greed and selfishness, is not science, it's dogma, a cultural aberration. Anthropologists have found out that this system - one based on greed and selfishness - is not the norm among human cultures, but aberration. E.g. gift systems are - or were - very widespread, giving gifts without waiting for anything in return was the way for high social esteem - the "poorest" (who gave most gifts) was the coolest guy in the tribe.
Looking at how this cancer like globalized culture is indeed depressing - because it is self destructive and hideously ugly. But in your heart, even though you are still living at least partly as a member of this culture and depend on it in many ways, in your heart, are you sustainable minded or not, however difficult that will be to put into practice? If you are, that is a great source of joy for both of us!
-
MrBean - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist
by MrBean » Tue 28 Oct 2008, 09:33:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e need government, business, and individal input.
Why do YOU need those? Do not include all of us in your "we".
-
MrBean - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist
by MrBill » Tue 28 Oct 2008, 09:35:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('galacticsurfer', 'B')ean however has a sort of point Mr. Bill.
I just saw the Taleeb interview on PBS and the globalized overoptimized banking/ trade/ capitalistic system is stretched to the max and bound to collapse according to the Black Swan author basing that on Mandelbrot's mathematics. So a locally flexible small market nonindustrial type of system would offer magnitudes of flexibility for system as we could not quickly reach limits of resources and a collapse in one place would not effect the system somewhere else.
I just saw the Taleeb interview on PBS and the globalized overoptimized banking/ trade/ capitalistic system is stretched to the max and bound to collapse according to the Black Swan author basing that on Mandelbrot's mathematics. So a locally flexible small market nonindustrial type of system would offer magnitudes of flexibility for system as we could not quickly reach limits of resources and a collapse in one place would not effect the system somewhere else.
No, MrBean does not have a point. See my original post. No system - whether it is a natural system or a financial system - can exist without inputs. Therefore the Folly of Growth is a piece of crap the same as Small is Beautiful misses the point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Production = turning inputs into outputs
Infinite growth = production X time itself.
No system can sustain itself without new inputs. Stop growing and you die.
Thanks eggheads!
Now go tell the unwashed masses that its nothing but diminishing returns from here to eternity (or die-off whichever comes first).
Goofballs! ; - ))
If we do not produce enough food to feed ourselves we die. Period. Food production requires inputs - land, labor, fertilizer, seed, etc. - to create food which is an output. Food, shelter, heat and clothing require inputs. Labor requires inputs. Inputs are needed for output. Output is production. Production over time is needed to sustain life. Therefore, growth can either be doing something more efficiently (fewer inputs to output); producing growth (more output to inputs); or steady growth (sustainable productions) over time. Sustainable growth over time is the goal.
I am finished wasting my time with posters that do not understand Economics 101 much less those that equate global financial imbalances such as discussed by Taleeb in Black Swan - which by the way is not a Black Swan event becaue the global imbalances themselves were perfectly identifiable, and central bankers, policy makers and academics publicly fretted about them for years - so they were not some tsunami like event that could not be predicted ahead of time, but a natural outcome of those imbalances. It was more a case of assigning a probability to the outcome rather than pretending it could or never would happen.
To skip directly from pretending we do not need growth to making valid criticisms about over-stretched, and therefore vulnerable financial models, in one step, while dismissing economics as a dogmatic religion based on a fundamental belief in greed and selfishness is MrBean being a complete wanker.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill - Expert
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
