[quote=Arraya][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
[quote=Arraya]
you’re so full of shit.
[/quote]
Once the ad hominems come out, I know I’ve struck gold.
And, as usual, you provide ZERO SPECIFIC evidence of your contention. Instead you just go off on some nonsensical tangent (which is probably a product of something you read somewhere and didn’t fully understand – but it sure sounded good!).
[quote=Arraya]
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…
[/quote]
Where have I EVER said that we didn’t need to worry about prolonged periods of contraction? That’s a rhetorical question as I’ve never suggested such a thing. But contractions do tend to run their course… eventually. So, in that context, I don’t think we need to collectively slit our throats if we have a difficult 5-10 year stretch economically.
[quote=Arraya]
Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance.
[/quote]
That’s certainly worked out well for you. And it’s awfully convenient because you don’t actually have to bother with that pesky issue of “understanding” anything.
[quote=Arraya]
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.
[/quote]
I actually don’t disagree with a lot of this part. But your comments here don’t really support your malthusian predictions – if anything, they contradict them. After all, if economics is purely “magical thinking” and the future is completely uncertain… then the (bleak) future YOU predict is just as unlikely as all of the other potential futures that might arise… by definition! That this never occurred to you is… well… telling.
[quote=Arraya]
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.
[/quote]
“Expecting” and “needing” are two very different words. Generic US stock investors EXPECT “epic growth” – to use your words – based on current valuations (and I anticipate disappointment). Agree with that. Debt investors (generically), on the other hand, merely NEED modest growth to continue to get paid their coupons. Although, admittedly, we’ve still got a lot of debt to charge off. But debt investors don’t need “epic” growth to get re-paid.
[quote=Arraya]
And your assertion that economics pushes growth to support increasing populations is nonsensical. you know better than that. If anything, it’s the opposite.
[/quote]
Exactly where did I assert that “economics pushes growth to support increasing populations”? I don’t even know what that sentence means. You just made that up. This is a recurring issue with you.
[quote=Arraya]
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[/quote]
That’s a bunch of rhetoric based on your own personal “magical thinking.” Don’t you find it the least bit ironic that when someone disagrees with your position on some economic matter it’s “magical thinking,” but when it’s your position, you refer to it as “analysis”? I find it extremely humorous – albeit not surprising – that this hasn’t occurred to you…
