3 ms·

Oh dear. > my final year of a business and economics degree [ ... ] capitalism is fundamentally flawed, requiring infinite growth on a finite planet I'd ask f

Oh dear. > my final year of a business and economics degree [ ... ] capitalism is fundamentally flawed, requiring infinite growth on a finite planet I'd ask for a refund on that degree if you never learned that growth requires no resources. Economic growth is simply a measure of human work and promises of future work – the former can grow indefinitely while the sun shines and the latter is entirely abstract.

baq 13y ago
> the former can grow indefinitely Explain, because for all I know that isn't true and it looks like you need to get an economics degree to believe otherwise. Physicists disagree and guess whose word I trust more.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  Note that I didn't say "grow infinitely", I said "grow indefinitely" – as in continuous, steady growth (historically, about 2-5% per annum). Basically, if you can keep working productively while the sun shines, this is growth. Physicists deal with real objects (virtual particles and string theorists notwithstanding). Wealth isn't real – it's abstract. As for abstract wealth... here, I'll give you an "I owe you" for $5. You now have an asset. You can trade that asset with other people since I'm a respected individual that others trust. I'll fulfil the value in future (maybe) but for now – the value came from absolutely nothing. It's entirely abstract. You want an infinite amount of them? Here you go.
pauletienney 13y ago
Growth = increase in wealth quantity. It seems reasonable to state that on a finite planet an infinite increase in wealth quantity is impossible.
manicdee 13y ago
Human work cannot grow indefinitely. We already have the situation of heavily populated countries buying up farms in other nations in order to secure food supply. There is a simple solution of course, but a one child policy was hard enough to enforce in China, I don't see how we would get the entire world to participate.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  "Growth" doesn't need the population to output more total work than last year, it just needs the population to output more work than the population consumes this year. The difference is growth. Growing the population actually doesn't necessarily help GDP per capita growth (the best measure of economic growth). If the country isn't managing population well, then increasing population actually hurts growth. Of course, the value of "work" is entirely abstract. You can value anything at any price you want. Society haggles "work" to within certain bounds but there's no basis in the non-abstract world for these bounds.
welly 13y ago
As an Irishman who studied seven years ago, it's doubtful he paid a penny for his degree.

baq 13y ago

> the former can grow indefinitely Explain, because for all I know that isn't true and it looks like you need to get an economics degree to believe otherwise. Physicists disagree and guess whose word I trust more.

gilgoomesh 13y ago
Note that I didn't say "grow infinitely", I said "grow indefinitely" – as in continuous, steady growth (historically, about 2-5% per annum). Basically, if you can keep working productively while the sun shines, this is growth. Physicists deal with real objects (virtual particles and string theorists notwithstanding). Wealth isn't real – it's abstract. As for abstract wealth... here, I'll give you an "I owe you" for $5. You now have an asset. You can trade that asset with other people since I'm a respected individual that others trust. I'll fulfil the value in future (maybe) but for now – the value came from absolutely nothing. It's entirely abstract. You want an infinite amount of them? Here you go.

pauletienney 13y ago

Growth = increase in wealth quantity. It seems reasonable to state that on a finite planet an infinite increase in wealth quantity is impossible.

manicdee 13y ago

Human work cannot grow indefinitely. We already have the situation of heavily populated countries buying up farms in other nations in order to secure food supply. There is a simple solution of course, but a one child policy was hard enough to enforce in China, I don't see how we would get the entire world to participate.

gilgoomesh 13y ago
"Growth" doesn't need the population to output more total work than last year, it just needs the population to output more work than the population consumes this year. The difference is growth. Growing the population actually doesn't necessarily help GDP per capita growth (the best measure of economic growth). If the country isn't managing population well, then increasing population actually hurts growth. Of course, the value of "work" is entirely abstract. You can value anything at any price you want. Society haggles "work" to within certain bounds but there's no basis in the non-abstract world for these bounds.

welly 13y ago

As an Irishman who studied seven years ago, it's doubtful he paid a penny for his degree.