3 ms·

> Borrowing money and the ability to pay it back depends on an economic system with future growth, or looked at another way infinite growth(1). Finite resources

> Borrowing money and the ability to pay it back depends on an economic system with future growth, or looked at another way infinite growth(1). Finite resources do not support infinite future growth(2). At some point, the financial system has to collapse(3). 1,2,3: citations needed.

georgeecollins 4y ago
Right! I got to this part and I thought, why am I reading a blog from someone this dumb. He could say, I don't know much about economics but recessions and depressions happen. But no, I have a friend who explained the world economy to me.. Later there is a section by person who survived the collapse of Bosnia, but even the blogger can't confirm it is authentic. I kind of hate read stuff like this because people who want to convince you the world is ending often are secretly hoping that the world will end as some sort of validation. Be prepared for natural disasters and power outages, thrive in the world as it exists.
natpalmer1776 4y ago
I would also like to point out, though without citation because I am lazy / uninvested, that in the past (1800's and back) money was lent to the friends of the wealthy at no interest. Profiting through interest was usually considered in poor taste, and generally lending was done primarily for business ventures and not something the average person utilized. This means that an economic system that permits lending without infinite future growth can and has existed. This is second hand knowledge conveyed to me by a banker acquaintance and, of course, everyone should do their own reading on the matter if it is important to them.
- gruez 4y ago
  > I would also like to point out, though without citation because I am lazy / uninvested, that in the past (1800's and back) money was lent to the friends of the wealthy at no interest. This is trivially disproven by doing a few searches on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest#History
  - natpalmer1776 4y ago
    This disproves nothing, merely also asserts that compound interest has ALSO existed for a very long time. Disproving my (unsubstantiated) assertion would involve a bit more than showing that compound interest existed in the past. Of course you could follow GP's very effective and valid strategy of simply stating that I must support my claims if I wish to sway your views. As it stands now we're both pontificating on the internet.
    - rhodorhoades 4y ago
      The fact that you say it is second hand knowledge of a banker friend makes it anecdotal. Which by definition is unprovable and is why it is not considered ‘evidence’. You also include another fallacy which is a claim to authority ‘banker friend’. What makes a modern day banker suitable to make such claims unless they are a econ historian? Common sense finally rules out your argument because why would I loan a friend money at zero interest if I can deploy that capital with interest. I’m sure it ‘happened’ but you can assume based on human interest that this was far from the norm. One thing you can generally follow as a principal is where there are incentives, human behavior will trend towards those incentives and away from disincentives.
      - drpyser22 4y ago
        For a wealthy person, maintaining status/perceptions and relationships may be worth more than the value of interests gained on a small loan(relative to their wealth). Cultural mores can certainly have more influence on behavior than raw rational self-interest. On a larger scale, greed may win out, but I can believe that in a limited scale of a particular social strata of a particular culture this can be sustainable.
      - natpalmer1776 4y ago
        Well, to be clear it was a low (academic) effort comment intended to inspire curiosity on the subject to encourage others who were truly interested to do their own reading on the subject. I was fully aware of the academic flaws in my original comment, and indeed phrased it that way intentionally so it could be construed only as what it was... anecdotal evidence with an appeal to weak / questionable authority. I assumed that those who took it upon themselves to read it would be capable of understanding these things and either conclude that it held (no) merit in light of their own first-hand knowledge, or, required further independent investigation to validate. Somehow, intentions of leaving a breadcrumb for the curious reader has turned into these far more detailed responses to individuals who, by my own interpretation, understood the sentiment and yet still choose to engage it as if it was something else.

georgeecollins 4y ago

Right! I got to this part and I thought, why am I reading a blog from someone this dumb. He could say, I don't know much about economics but recessions and depressions happen. But no, I have a friend who explained the world economy to me.. Later there is a section by person who survived the collapse of Bosnia, but even the blogger can't confirm it is authentic. I kind of hate read stuff like this because people who want to convince you the world is ending often are secretly hoping that the world will end as some sort of validation. Be prepared for natural disasters and power outages, thrive in the world as it exists.

natpalmer1776 4y ago

I would also like to point out, though without citation because I am lazy / uninvested, that in the past (1800's and back) money was lent to the friends of the wealthy at no interest. Profiting through interest was usually considered in poor taste, and generally lending was done primarily for business ventures and not something the average person utilized. This means that an economic system that permits lending without infinite future growth can and has existed. This is second hand knowledge conveyed to me by a banker acquaintance and, of course, everyone should do their own reading on the matter if it is important to them.

gruez 4y ago
> I would also like to point out, though without citation because I am lazy / uninvested, that in the past (1800's and back) money was lent to the friends of the wealthy at no interest. This is trivially disproven by doing a few searches on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest#History
- natpalmer1776 4y ago
  This disproves nothing, merely also asserts that compound interest has ALSO existed for a very long time. Disproving my (unsubstantiated) assertion would involve a bit more than showing that compound interest existed in the past. Of course you could follow GP's very effective and valid strategy of simply stating that I must support my claims if I wish to sway your views. As it stands now we're both pontificating on the internet.
  - rhodorhoades 4y ago
    The fact that you say it is second hand knowledge of a banker friend makes it anecdotal. Which by definition is unprovable and is why it is not considered ‘evidence’. You also include another fallacy which is a claim to authority ‘banker friend’. What makes a modern day banker suitable to make such claims unless they are a econ historian? Common sense finally rules out your argument because why would I loan a friend money at zero interest if I can deploy that capital with interest. I’m sure it ‘happened’ but you can assume based on human interest that this was far from the norm. One thing you can generally follow as a principal is where there are incentives, human behavior will trend towards those incentives and away from disincentives.
    - drpyser22 4y ago
      For a wealthy person, maintaining status/perceptions and relationships may be worth more than the value of interests gained on a small loan(relative to their wealth). Cultural mores can certainly have more influence on behavior than raw rational self-interest. On a larger scale, greed may win out, but I can believe that in a limited scale of a particular social strata of a particular culture this can be sustainable.
    - natpalmer1776 4y ago
      Well, to be clear it was a low (academic) effort comment intended to inspire curiosity on the subject to encourage others who were truly interested to do their own reading on the subject. I was fully aware of the academic flaws in my original comment, and indeed phrased it that way intentionally so it could be construed only as what it was... anecdotal evidence with an appeal to weak / questionable authority. I assumed that those who took it upon themselves to read it would be capable of understanding these things and either conclude that it held (no) merit in light of their own first-hand knowledge, or, required further independent investigation to validate. Somehow, intentions of leaving a breadcrumb for the curious reader has turned into these far more detailed responses to individuals who, by my own interpretation, understood the sentiment and yet still choose to engage it as if it was something else.