6 ms·

Maybe a growing pie is not perfect, but it is greatly preferable to a shrinking one. For a simple example, take a company that looses some contracts and stops g

Maybe a growing pie is not perfect, but it is greatly preferable to a shrinking one. For a simple example, take a company that looses some contracts and stops growing; you get new conflicts or old ones become critical, ppl start leaving, etc. As long as the pie is growing, it can hide or solve by default many existing problems which would be very difficult or costly to fix otherwise.

vitro 7y ago
Is growing pie sustainable?
- whb07 7y ago
  Why wouldn't it be? Humans have infinite wants and needs. These change overtime in terms of taste/perception as well. So the counter point should be made as to how this isn't the case and that a "growing pie" is actually against human nature.
  - eloff 7y ago
    It's the compound interest problem. If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. So clearly, growth is not sustainable and must eventually slow down until it approaches zero. To be clear, we're far away from that today. But the parent is mathematically correct, the best kind of correct.
    - v4dok 7y ago
      But why should growth of the growing GDP should be the target? I don't think that anyone believes that the GDP growth can increase every year. But you can reasonably assume that it can grow every year
      - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
        I think his point is that, for example, a flat 2% yearly GDP growth is a yearly increase in absolute growth due to compounding, and most economists absolutely do believe that's possible somewhat indefinitely (with significant historical basis for that belief).
    - drusenko 7y ago
      > If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. Would be super interested to see your math. What are the inputs and equation that get you to these specific outputs (a few thousand years, all resources, a few thousand light years)?
      - andrewprock 7y ago
        If the Pharoah Tutankhamen had invested the equivalent of $1, and earned a real rate of return of 1%, today's value of that investment would be more than $350 trillion, which is a quantity larger than Credit Suisse's estimate of "global net worth".
    - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
      The calculation isn't so simple -- a lot of growth is efficiency growth: getting a lot more out of the resources you're using. Switching all energy production to nuclear, for example, would lower resource usage while drastically raising GDP.
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      >like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources Increased GDP does not require consuming more resources. Using them more efficiently adds significantly to GDP, so this argument doesn't provide a rationale to claim infinite GDP growth is impossible. A good example is many advanced economies have increased per capita GDP significantly while lowering per capita energy consumption at the same time (and lowering many other per capita material consumption areas).
    - whb07 7y ago
      Uh, more notable incorrect persons have noted this argument. You’re using what’s called a Malthusian argument. Anyhow, let’s say everything you say is correct for today’s wants and needs. But if it is true that society changes and needs change etc, then your argument doesn’t hold for tomorrow. Suppose for a moment there is only 10 years worth of X left, who is to say that one of these things doesn’t happen: * X thing is no longer needed because Y thing is no longer in fashion * X thing gets replaced by other comparable Z material ... and this goes on forever. That’s the point.
    - eloff 7y ago
      A lot of people nitpicking at the argument here, about resource substitutions, efficiency improvements, etc. So let's simplify this argument a little. It's not possible to have infinite growth in a finite universe. By definition infinity > not infinity for arbitrarily large values of not infinity. Therefore the limit of growth as time approaches infinity is 0. At some point you reach the physical limit of the system and exponential growth ends. This is true even for digital systems if the digital good involves some physical resource like energy, storage space, bandwidth, etc. For example, if we keep growing energy usage at the historical rate of 3% a year, we would cook ourselves with the waste heat within 400 years. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from. Now we can get around that by moving off the earth, which buys time, but eventually, also in short order, we'd use all the available energy from our star. We could get around that through nuclear energy sources or widening the area to encompass more stars. But there is only so much matter and energy in the universe. Eventually the show stops. I challenge you to find a theoretical counter example.
      - danans 7y ago
        > At some point you reach the physical limit of the system and exponential growth ends. This is true even for digital systems if the digital good involves some physical resource like energy, storage space, bandwidth, etc. At some point well before that, the sun will go red giant and swallow earth, so that's sort of beside the point. In the meantime, if we continue to fuel GDP growth via inefficient use of non-renewable natural resources, we'll have big problems far sooner than any astrophysical limit sets in.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      You are assuming that increased resource consumption always is tied to increased GDP. Others have argued that once GDP hits a threshold, both incremental and total resource consumption decreases. For example, a richer economy might replace physical goods with digital goods which have higher value and lower resource demand. [1] Check out Andrew McAfee on More from Less
      - eloff 7y ago
        I think that's a temporary setback only. It's a one time thing to replace your resource intensive good with a more efficient one. But that doesn't give you growth forever, because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe. Sooner or later all exponential growth must end. That includes all forms of compound growth, such as GDP increasing at any percent you want year after year.
        s1artibartfast 7y ago
        >because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe. I think you misread my post. Real world growth with negative or zero resource consumption can be reconciled with a finite universe. On a mathematical level, there is no reason that GDP can not go infinite in a finite universe as GDP does not need material inputs.
        eloff 7y ago
        Maybe I was being too generous to your post. There is no way to decouple GDP from material inputs, even if, as with digital good and services the inputs are quite small. They're still there, which means they're still finite, which means GDP is finite.
        s1artibartfast 7y ago
        So perhaps the issue is that there are two cases being conflated. In the practical sense, there is ample room for GDP growth on Earth in the immediate future. A huge portion of the population is underdeveloped while only a fraction of the world's natural resources have been extracted. Data also suggests GDP in developed economies can be increased while total resource consumption decreases once areas reach. If someone is going to make a hypothetical mathematical/universal scale argument, I think it worth pointing out that GDP is accounting construct, with no inherent tie to material reality. For example two people could sell each other arbitrary services, (eg silence), and charge arbitrary sums.
- golemotron 7y ago
  > Is growing pie sustainable? Humans are encountering the limits of connection and communication. This means that even if the pie grows in the aggregate, we're going to fracture.
n4r9 7y ago
> As long as the pie is growing, it can hide or solve by default many existing problems I think one issue with this analogy, is that companies have central points of authority but Western economies don't so much. For example GDP growth doesn't magically fix rising homelessness, and in the absence of central authority it becomes very difficult to address. People often don't like the idea that their "taxpayers money" is being spent on other people that aren't (currently) working.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >For example GDP growth doesn't magically fix rising homelessness Nothing magically fixes homelessness, but GDP correlates well with a host of public benefits, including "poverty reduction and per capita income growth performances are correlated" [1]. All these correlations can be more accurately detailed by searching google scholar. In the US, it seems homelessness has decreased greatly since it was first investigated in the 1860s as people moved to cities. During the GD in 1930, there were about 2M homeless against a total population of 120M people, and now it's around 500k against a population of 320M. I'd suspect that GDP rise over those periods helped reduce homelessness quite a bit by providing more resources per capita to address it. [1] https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/gdp_correlations.html https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/gdp_correlations.html
  - n4r9 7y ago
    Isn't this a prime example of correlation, not causation?
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      Given that GDP/capita is not only correlated but causually related to many wellness factors in society, it much more likely not simply a correlation. These connections are well studied - check through google scholar is you really want to dig into it. More GDP/capita means more resources to fight things like homelessness.
      - 7y ago
stopads 7y ago
Are you Mark Zuckerberg?

vitro 7y ago

Is growing pie sustainable?

whb07 7y ago
Why wouldn't it be? Humans have infinite wants and needs. These change overtime in terms of taste/perception as well. So the counter point should be made as to how this isn't the case and that a "growing pie" is actually against human nature.
- eloff 7y ago
  It's the compound interest problem. If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. So clearly, growth is not sustainable and must eventually slow down until it approaches zero. To be clear, we're far away from that today. But the parent is mathematically correct, the best kind of correct.
  - v4dok 7y ago
    But why should growth of the growing GDP should be the target? I don't think that anyone believes that the GDP growth can increase every year. But you can reasonably assume that it can grow every year
    - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
      I think his point is that, for example, a flat 2% yearly GDP growth is a yearly increase in absolute growth due to compounding, and most economists absolutely do believe that's possible somewhat indefinitely (with significant historical basis for that belief).
  - drusenko 7y ago
    > If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. Would be super interested to see your math. What are the inputs and equation that get you to these specific outputs (a few thousand years, all resources, a few thousand light years)?
    - andrewprock 7y ago
      If the Pharoah Tutankhamen had invested the equivalent of $1, and earned a real rate of return of 1%, today's value of that investment would be more than $350 trillion, which is a quantity larger than Credit Suisse's estimate of "global net worth".
  - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
    The calculation isn't so simple -- a lot of growth is efficiency growth: getting a lot more out of the resources you're using. Switching all energy production to nuclear, for example, would lower resource usage while drastically raising GDP.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    >like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources Increased GDP does not require consuming more resources. Using them more efficiently adds significantly to GDP, so this argument doesn't provide a rationale to claim infinite GDP growth is impossible. A good example is many advanced economies have increased per capita GDP significantly while lowering per capita energy consumption at the same time (and lowering many other per capita material consumption areas).
  - whb07 7y ago
    Uh, more notable incorrect persons have noted this argument. You’re using what’s called a Malthusian argument. Anyhow, let’s say everything you say is correct for today’s wants and needs. But if it is true that society changes and needs change etc, then your argument doesn’t hold for tomorrow. Suppose for a moment there is only 10 years worth of X left, who is to say that one of these things doesn’t happen: * X thing is no longer needed because Y thing is no longer in fashion * X thing gets replaced by other comparable Z material ... and this goes on forever. That’s the point.
  - eloff 7y ago
    A lot of people nitpicking at the argument here, about resource substitutions, efficiency improvements, etc. So let's simplify this argument a little. It's not possible to have infinite growth in a finite universe. By definition infinity > not infinity for arbitrarily large values of not infinity. Therefore the limit of growth as time approaches infinity is 0. At some point you reach the physical limit of the system and exponential growth ends. This is true even for digital systems if the digital good involves some physical resource like energy, storage space, bandwidth, etc. For example, if we keep growing energy usage at the historical rate of 3% a year, we would cook ourselves with the waste heat within 400 years. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from. Now we can get around that by moving off the earth, which buys time, but eventually, also in short order, we'd use all the available energy from our star. We could get around that through nuclear energy sources or widening the area to encompass more stars. But there is only so much matter and energy in the universe. Eventually the show stops. I challenge you to find a theoretical counter example.
    - danans 7y ago
      > At some point you reach the physical limit of the system and exponential growth ends. This is true even for digital systems if the digital good involves some physical resource like energy, storage space, bandwidth, etc. At some point well before that, the sun will go red giant and swallow earth, so that's sort of beside the point. In the meantime, if we continue to fuel GDP growth via inefficient use of non-renewable natural resources, we'll have big problems far sooner than any astrophysical limit sets in.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    You are assuming that increased resource consumption always is tied to increased GDP. Others have argued that once GDP hits a threshold, both incremental and total resource consumption decreases. For example, a richer economy might replace physical goods with digital goods which have higher value and lower resource demand. [1] Check out Andrew McAfee on More from Less
    - eloff 7y ago
      I think that's a temporary setback only. It's a one time thing to replace your resource intensive good with a more efficient one. But that doesn't give you growth forever, because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe. Sooner or later all exponential growth must end. That includes all forms of compound growth, such as GDP increasing at any percent you want year after year.
      - s1artibartfast 7y ago
        >because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe. I think you misread my post. Real world growth with negative or zero resource consumption can be reconciled with a finite universe. On a mathematical level, there is no reason that GDP can not go infinite in a finite universe as GDP does not need material inputs.
        eloff 7y ago
        Maybe I was being too generous to your post. There is no way to decouple GDP from material inputs, even if, as with digital good and services the inputs are quite small. They're still there, which means they're still finite, which means GDP is finite.
        s1artibartfast 7y ago
        So perhaps the issue is that there are two cases being conflated. In the practical sense, there is ample room for GDP growth on Earth in the immediate future. A huge portion of the population is underdeveloped while only a fraction of the world's natural resources have been extracted. Data also suggests GDP in developed economies can be increased while total resource consumption decreases once areas reach. If someone is going to make a hypothetical mathematical/universal scale argument, I think it worth pointing out that GDP is accounting construct, with no inherent tie to material reality. For example two people could sell each other arbitrary services, (eg silence), and charge arbitrary sums.
golemotron 7y ago
> Is growing pie sustainable? Humans are encountering the limits of connection and communication. This means that even if the pie grows in the aggregate, we're going to fracture.

n4r9 7y ago

> As long as the pie is growing, it can hide or solve by default many existing problems I think one issue with this analogy, is that companies have central points of authority but Western economies don't so much. For example GDP growth doesn't magically fix rising homelessness, and in the absence of central authority it becomes very difficult to address. People often don't like the idea that their "taxpayers money" is being spent on other people that aren't (currently) working.

ChrisLomont 7y ago
>For example GDP growth doesn't magically fix rising homelessness Nothing magically fixes homelessness, but GDP correlates well with a host of public benefits, including "poverty reduction and per capita income growth performances are correlated" [1]. All these correlations can be more accurately detailed by searching google scholar. In the US, it seems homelessness has decreased greatly since it was first investigated in the 1860s as people moved to cities. During the GD in 1930, there were about 2M homeless against a total population of 120M people, and now it's around 500k against a population of 320M. I'd suspect that GDP rise over those periods helped reduce homelessness quite a bit by providing more resources per capita to address it. [1] https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/gdp_correlations.html https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/gdp_correlations.html
- n4r9 7y ago
  Isn't this a prime example of correlation, not causation?
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Given that GDP/capita is not only correlated but causually related to many wellness factors in society, it much more likely not simply a correlation. These connections are well studied - check through google scholar is you really want to dig into it. More GDP/capita means more resources to fight things like homelessness.
    - 7y ago

stopads 7y ago

Are you Mark Zuckerberg?