Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse Now
We're talking at cross purposes and seem to be having completely different conversations. You're talking about the history of the perception of the US dollar verses other currencies.
I'm talking about the future viability of any currency system in any nation that requires exponential economic growth on a finite planet.
|
No actually we're talking about the same thing, its really just an issue of understanding basic mathematics and the fact that the Malthusian view of "limited resources" has always been trumped by technological advances and changes in human behavior.
200 years ago,
Thomas Malthus basically argued that population grows geometrically while food can only grow arithmetically, and therefore we were even back then on the brink of extinction.
Then the Industrial Revolution came along and had two effects: technology dramatically improved the productivity of food production, and the growth of a more complex society based on automation rather than raw labor meant that average family size dropped dramatically. Today in most Western countries there is *negative* population growth, and growth is only sustained through immigration from countries that are still only in their early phases of industrialization. India's population growth rates have begun to slow, and China with its one-child-per-family policy has almost instantaneously put the brakes on growth.
Today, no one talks about population outstripping food supply, but Malthusianism continues with new appeals to different sets of limited resources such as oil.
While of course it would be foolish to say that we can procreate like crazy and technology will always save us, there is still clearly a range of "smart growth" that's quite clearly sustainable unless by some miracle technological advancement stops in its tracks. Not that it never will: the Middle Ages were great proof of that, but Rome's fall was not due to the *inherent* nature of geometric progression, only due to foolish politicians letting the growth go out of balance with progress!
And that's the *correct* part of your argument: in the US today, rapid growth in debt is a concern, but *not* simply because its "geometric," its that it is not being *controlled* and *balanced*. This is why most rational economists recognize that overall GDP growth for most countries should remain at 2-4% per year: if they "overheat"--like China--there are horrific consequences down the road when resources--even easily "renewable" ones like labor lag demand.
But if you keep the demand and supply in balance, then all that debt makes it so much easier to fund the technological investment that gets you to more abundant resources and relieve the pressure.
The last point here is that its important *not to fear geometric growth*!
Here's a simple exercise: get a piece of graph paper and draw a graph of
with the range on the x-axis going from 0 to 10. Now take a separate piece of graph paper and graph the same function but label the x-axis 0 to 100 in the same space as the first graph. Now lay one on top of each other. You'll note they're the same. And yet the *entire* first graph is that very flat section at the left end of the second graph.
Not so scary anymore I hope.
The point here is that you can get scared about debt growing at a geometric rate until you think about the fact that the economy is growing along at about the same rate. You should still punish the politicians who have a cavalier attitude about the relationship between the two, but it's really not as *inherently* scary as you make it sound.
Are there limits to the resources on the Earth? Sure, but you know what our technology is doing? In energy, we're heading straight toward getting the majority of our energy from the sun in one form or another (solar cells, solar heating, wind, tides, hydro, etc.). We're spending far more time recycling rather than mining resources. We're working on sustainable approaches to farming and (finally, just before the fish "run out") fishing.
And by industrializing the third world we're bringing population growth rates down to a level that even Malthus would think are sustainable!
I personally am very thankful for Malthus' effect on economics in showing the need for sensible growth, but at the same time, he has generated an unending stream of "Chicken Little's" who are forever predicting the end of the world as we know it.
Its never going to be easy, but if we're smart we might last as long as the dinosaurs.
Of course in 10 billion years we all get burned to a crisp when the Sun goes nova, so if you really *want* to be a pessimist, that's the ultimate answer.
Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy,
Buffy
