[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya][quote=davelj]And the solution to this “problem” (if you accept that there is a problem, that is) is so simple: Stop reproducing.[/quote]
Really? So, businesses would not try to grow if populations were stagnant? Wall Street would not try sell investment vehicles? how much would get invested into a business that advertises no or negative growth? Capital doesn’t seek growth to service the population. Capital seeks growth for the sake of growth.[/quote]
They would try, certainly. But they would be constrained by productivity growth as population would be constantly moving in the wrong direction… by definition. Yes, Wall Street would sell investment vehicles, but the implied growth would be muted (or negative) for many of its products. “How much would get invested into a business that advertises no or negative growth?” Is that a real question? Plenty of folks buy into businesses knowing that they’re going to throw off declining cashflow – they just don’t assign a very high valuation to them – it’s just an NPV estimation, after all.
“Capital seeks growth for the sake of growth”? Huh? You made that up because you though it sounded good, right? You continue to confirm my view that you have zero understanding of finance. Capital seeks a RETURN. Period. Often that return is dependent on expectations of growth. But many times, capital is invested in situations where is it known ahead of time that there is little or no growt/ (or negative growth, for that matter) – and the price is adjusted accordingly. Capital is invested toward NPV/IRR – growth may or may not be a consideration. That hou don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.[/quote]
Capital is invested toward NPV/IRR – growth may or may not be a consideration. That you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot
you’re so full of shit.
Are you serious, that explains a lot…. Oh, well since finance has non-growth necessitating vehicles we don’t have to worry about prolonged periods of contraction, right. Sure…
Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance. Economics in general is a complete and utter pseudo-science with a little bit of real and a whole bunch of magical thinking nonsense dressed up as an actual science with some complex math. With any detractors labeled as heretics and burned at the stake for challenging dogma.
The empirical testing of economic theories is not far removed from “Well if it happened in the past is might happen again” The extrapolation of trends is not a science. It’s guess work with a wishing aspect.
With the amount of debt in western world, which is an instrument that necessitates growth, you very well know that big finance is expecting / needing some epic growth in the future.
And your assertion that economics pushes growth to support increasing populations is nonsensical. you know better than that. If anything, it’s the opposite.
There are reasons why the much anticipated and needed growth to support the debt overhang will not manifest, much to everybody’s dismay. It’s blatantly obvious if you are not blinded by economics and you broaden your view. In fact, in the next few years, we are in for an epic contraction that no magical thinking theory can stop.
Economics continues to endorse the illusion that more people consuming more resources is the road to prosperity, whereas now the exact opposite is true….That you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot
