3 ms·
Yeah, it’s possible we may dodge that bullet, but rather than take the win, economists are freaking out because they don’t know how to think about that.
by Finnucane 2y ago
Yeah, it’s possible we may dodge that bullet, but rather than take the win, economists are freaking out because they don’t know how to think about that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> economists are freaking out Versus sticking our heads in the sand until problems arise? It’s wild that pointing out the logical consequences of changing trends, consequences which don’t manifest for almost a century, can be characterised as “freaking out.”
- Finnucane 2y agoWell, so far, most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have I see both. (Also, loosening immigration.) In any case, the first step to reforming the system is exploring where it will break.
- creato 2y agoThis isn’t a solely a problem of modern economics/economists. A family or tribe would have the same problems. A primitive tribal village would struggle to survive with an inverted population pyramid too. It’s the same problem, modern economics and trade just makes the size of the tribe or family bigger.
- Gibbon1 2y agoThe whole basis of modern economics are theories that assumes exponential growth. Which is then used to justify rent seeking capitalists diverting an ever larger percentage of that growth. When raw growth stops then the economic system built to enable that crashes.