6 ms·

Author confuses units from step 1 to step 2 of his arguments. Step 1 starts with an "S" shaped graph of GDP/Capita. Step 2 shows derivative of the curve, but i

Author confuses units from step 1 to step 2 of his arguments. Step 1 starts with an "S" shaped graph of GDP/Capita. Step 2 shows derivative of the curve, but is labeled as dGDP/dt, ignoring dCapita/dt. Author does not consider historical changes in demographics when GDP growth slows. See demographic changes in Japan, Europe, US for examples of how population growth rates change due to economic and war-related shocks. Also see motivation for China ending the 1 child policy - they want to bring the cost of labor back down and they need a higher pop growth rate to generate enough economic activity to pay pensions, retirement, healthcare for expensive retirement-age cohort where people are living longer and thus costing the country much more. Author should have challenged Porter's initial claim: "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." While it makes for a good soundbyte, it ignores the symbiotic and (usually) directly proportional but lagged/leading relationship of economic growth and population growth.

tormeh 11y ago
It also ignores the question of what economic growth is. Infinite economic growth does not mean infinite potatoes. Infinite economic growth means infinite increase in perceived worth of stuff we make. That's eminently doable. I mean, growth has shifted to services long ago. We can't make infinite potatoes, but that's not required for infinite growth.
- Retric 11y ago
  If potatoes have value, the total economy is expressible in in some number of potatoes. Unbound growth requires the relative value of potatoes to always decrease. However, the same must be said for every other physical good including gold and land etc. Thus, economic growth is only infinite when all physical goods have zero value. That might happen, but it seems really unlikely.
  - tormeh 11y ago
    As inflation-adjusted GDP approaches infinity the value of potatoes must approach zero, yes. Of course, were demand for potatoes to suddenly increase, the value of potatoes would too, so it does not imply any ability to buy an earth-sized ball of potatoes for a dollar in the near future. But the price of potatoes, at typical demand, must approach zero, yes. The value of potatoes have been going towards zero for a long time, anyway. It's not hard to envisage a future with self-maintaining automated farming and fusion energy where potatoes are basically free.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Self maintained automated farms are not going to be handing out beach front houses any time soon. Further, an economy where everyone get's their own complete copy of earth and can teleport anywhere is still finite.
- tpeo 11y ago
  I see how the "perceived worth" if GDP is designed to be a measure of real economic variables e.g. tons of steel. Growth that isn't growth which isn't attributable to increases in quantity produced is just inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.
  - tormeh 11y ago
    You measure steel in tons of a given quality. GDP is not for measuring manufacturing output. Services do add to GDP despite needing no new resources per se.
crpatino 11y ago
Maybe a bit offtopic, but could you elaborate on why you think infinite growth in a finite world is possible? You addressed labor cost, but it is only (the easiest) one amongst several variables. You have effectively changed Porter's claim into: "... exponential growth can go on forever in an ever expanding world..." where your only concern is how to make economy grow faster than population. Look at your China example. If the root cause of the one-child-policy were a hard biological fact of the human species - i.e. like if women would become sterile after their first successful pregnancy - instead of, well... policy, how would the Chinese government would respondo to the "expensive retirement-age cohort where people are living longer"? Follow the West model and invest in automation whenever feasible? Extend retirement age to 80+? Try to produce a genetically engineered a race of labourers with enhanced chances of having twin (or higher) pregnancies? Gun down the elderly, weak or disabled, and turn them into soylent green? The posibilities are many, but none come without hard tradeoffs and costs, and the ethical dilemas are head spinning.
- jobu 11y ago
  > Maybe a bit offtopic, but could you elaborate on why you think infinite growth in a finite world is possible? This argument assumes we are restricted to a finite world. There has been significant discussion about mining asteroids recently, and some very talented people are currently working on plans to settle Mars.
- jevgeni 11y ago
  My problem with the "finite growth" narrative I see often, is the fact that they always assume that growth is strictly a function of natural, material resources. To paint a caricature: they almost seem to say "We had 100 people and 50 ingots of iron and we produced 200 forks and 30 novels. If we'd have 50 people and 25 ingots of iron, we'd only produce 100 forks and 15 novels." Which is retarded. One of the main (if not THE main) factors of growth is scientific progress - something that is mostly immaterial. The whole Internet revolution was made possible using machines that don't exactly run on steam and copious amount of coal. We are constantly learning to make more with less. Until the finite growth theories start incorporating this notion, I will not treat them seriously. The other problem I have with these theories, is that they tend to draw very weird and bolshevist crowd who want to start redistributing wealth, rationing out food, and breeding a "stable population" as soon as possible.
avn2109 11y ago
>> "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." I am interested in hearing what people think about the claim that economic growth and growth in energy use are coupled. If the two quantities are coupled, how do you respond to arguments like this one? [0] "Let me restate that important point. No matter what the technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun within 1400 years. A word of warning: that power plant is going to run a little warm. Thermodynamics require that if we generated sun-comparable power on Earth, the surface of the Earth—being smaller than that of the sun—would have to be hotter than the surface of the sun!" [0] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...

tormeh 11y ago

It also ignores the question of what economic growth is. Infinite economic growth does not mean infinite potatoes. Infinite economic growth means infinite increase in perceived worth of stuff we make. That's eminently doable. I mean, growth has shifted to services long ago. We can't make infinite potatoes, but that's not required for infinite growth.

Retric 11y ago
If potatoes have value, the total economy is expressible in in some number of potatoes. Unbound growth requires the relative value of potatoes to always decrease. However, the same must be said for every other physical good including gold and land etc. Thus, economic growth is only infinite when all physical goods have zero value. That might happen, but it seems really unlikely.
- tormeh 11y ago
  As inflation-adjusted GDP approaches infinity the value of potatoes must approach zero, yes. Of course, were demand for potatoes to suddenly increase, the value of potatoes would too, so it does not imply any ability to buy an earth-sized ball of potatoes for a dollar in the near future. But the price of potatoes, at typical demand, must approach zero, yes. The value of potatoes have been going towards zero for a long time, anyway. It's not hard to envisage a future with self-maintaining automated farming and fusion energy where potatoes are basically free.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Self maintained automated farms are not going to be handing out beach front houses any time soon. Further, an economy where everyone get's their own complete copy of earth and can teleport anywhere is still finite.
tpeo 11y ago
I see how the "perceived worth" if GDP is designed to be a measure of real economic variables e.g. tons of steel. Growth that isn't growth which isn't attributable to increases in quantity produced is just inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.
- tormeh 11y ago
  You measure steel in tons of a given quality. GDP is not for measuring manufacturing output. Services do add to GDP despite needing no new resources per se.

crpatino 11y ago

Maybe a bit offtopic, but could you elaborate on why you think infinite growth in a finite world is possible? You addressed labor cost, but it is only (the easiest) one amongst several variables. You have effectively changed Porter's claim into: "... exponential growth can go on forever in an ever expanding world..." where your only concern is how to make economy grow faster than population. Look at your China example. If the root cause of the one-child-policy were a hard biological fact of the human species - i.e. like if women would become sterile after their first successful pregnancy - instead of, well... policy, how would the Chinese government would respondo to the "expensive retirement-age cohort where people are living longer"? Follow the West model and invest in automation whenever feasible? Extend retirement age to 80+? Try to produce a genetically engineered a race of labourers with enhanced chances of having twin (or higher) pregnancies? Gun down the elderly, weak or disabled, and turn them into soylent green? The posibilities are many, but none come without hard tradeoffs and costs, and the ethical dilemas are head spinning.

jobu 11y ago
> Maybe a bit offtopic, but could you elaborate on why you think infinite growth in a finite world is possible? This argument assumes we are restricted to a finite world. There has been significant discussion about mining asteroids recently, and some very talented people are currently working on plans to settle Mars.
jevgeni 11y ago
My problem with the "finite growth" narrative I see often, is the fact that they always assume that growth is strictly a function of natural, material resources. To paint a caricature: they almost seem to say "We had 100 people and 50 ingots of iron and we produced 200 forks and 30 novels. If we'd have 50 people and 25 ingots of iron, we'd only produce 100 forks and 15 novels." Which is retarded. One of the main (if not THE main) factors of growth is scientific progress - something that is mostly immaterial. The whole Internet revolution was made possible using machines that don't exactly run on steam and copious amount of coal. We are constantly learning to make more with less. Until the finite growth theories start incorporating this notion, I will not treat them seriously. The other problem I have with these theories, is that they tend to draw very weird and bolshevist crowd who want to start redistributing wealth, rationing out food, and breeding a "stable population" as soon as possible.

avn2109 11y ago

>> "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." I am interested in hearing what people think about the claim that economic growth and growth in energy use are coupled. If the two quantities are coupled, how do you respond to arguments like this one? [0] "Let me restate that important point. No matter what the technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun within 1400 years. A word of warning: that power plant is going to run a little warm. Thermodynamics require that if we generated sun-comparable power on Earth, the surface of the Earth—being smaller than that of the sun—would have to be hotter than the surface of the sun!" [0] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...