Sustainable growth limits

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.
[/quote]

File Under: Pot Calls Kettle Black.

[quote=Arraya]
And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn’t know what you meant. Really. (I’m not sure why I would lie about this since we straightened out what you really meant and I addressed the issue anyway… but whatever.) But if it helps you to sleep at night to think I was lying, that’s perfectly o.k. with me.

[quote=Arraya]
Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.
[/quote]

And there you go again with the “economics pushes for growth…” I really wish you would use some term or combination of terms other than “economics” here because it just doesn’t make sense the way you write it (or at least not to me, anyway). I thought my “politicians and most economists” was a good substitute once I understood what you were getting at. Or perhaps “the Powers That Be within the economics profession,” or something like that. But “economics” is: the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Now substitute that definition into your sentence and I think (re: hope) you’ll agree that it doesn’t make much sense. But if you put the right combination of words in place of “economics” I might actually agree with you (to some extent, at least).

[quote=Arraya]
There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.
[/quote]

So, I’m a “junior member of the church of growth”? Perhaps… I’m actually not sure because I’m not certain what the members of this church actually believe and where my beliefs might diverge with them. But I’ll assume – and correct me if I’m wrong – that the church of growth members (in your view) believe in “sustainable growth forever,” which is what you don’t believe in (among other things). I’m actually going to do a separate post below to discuss this in a little more detail, but here I’ll just say that I believe that in my lifetime (let’s hope another 40 years, give or take) that the global economy will grow at some modest rate – if I had to place a bet I’d say 1%-2% per year in real terms. That’s my mean expectation. But… I would acknowledge that (1) NOTHING lasts forever (as forever’s a long time), and (2) the future is uncertain, so there could be a lot of variability about that expected mean. So, “sustainable modest growth for a few decades” is something in which I have a reasonable degree of confidence; “sustainable growth forever” is not. But there’s a HELL of a lot of possibilities that exist between those two.

[quote=Arraya]
Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.
[/quote]

Again, it’s only everyone ELSE’s beliefs that are “magical thinking,” never your own. And, of course, the more people that disagree with you, the more certain you are in your own beliefs. Both are awfully convenient in the context of a debate.

[quote=Arraya]
Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.
[/quote]

So you continue to say over and over and over. I think you’d get a more sympathetic hearing on these ideas if you presented them as “opinions” rather than “certainties.” But you’d have to be open to the possibility – be it ever so remote – that you might end up being wrong… and that certainly isn’t your style.

[quote=Arraya]
Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.
[/quote]

Actually, I did a post a while back showing that, while we have a major debt problem, it doesn’t necessarily portend economic apocalypse, but rather a very long period of sub-par economic growth. It had math and everything. Oh, but I forgot, math should never be used in economics because it’s a “pseudo science.” Thus, all economic and financial analysis that involves math is discredited. (I’m going to address this issue a bit more below as well.)

[quote=Arraya]
Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist[/quote]

You’re the “fucking anti-christ”? I just thought you were a garden variety bitter dude unhappy with his life. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion

“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”

“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”

Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]

Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]

Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.

So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.

Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion

“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”

“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”

Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]

Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]

Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.

So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.

Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion

“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”

“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”

Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]

Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]

Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.

So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.

Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion

“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”

“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”

Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]

Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]

Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.

So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.

Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion

“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”

“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”

Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]

Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]

Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.

So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.

Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.

[davelj]

Now, Arraya, what I’m going to attempt to do here is frame what I THINK you believe (well, the highlights at least) and compare it with what I believe, along with some commentary. That way, we might be able to avoid some of the back-and-forth over minutiae.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the following are some of your core beliefs where global economics is concerned (based on your posts):

(1) Economics is a “pseudo science… guess work with a wishing aspect,” (to use your words) and, as such, is useless (to study, apply, etc.).
(2) An understanding of “traditional” economics and finance is counterproductive in understanding how the world “really” works. I quote: “Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance [sic].”
(3) The Financial And Social Apocalypse (“FASA” for short) is upon us and will, for all intents and purposes, take down the world as we know it in relatively short order (I’m guessing your time horizon is less than 10 years). In your eyes, this is not a possibility, it is a certainty.

Where (1) is concerned, I’m going to use the analogy of Newtonian Physics. Q: What’s the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Newtonian Physics? A: It’s wrong; Einsteinian Physics supplanted it. But despite the fact that Newtonian Physics is “wrong,” it happens to do a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us. Likewise, one thing we know about the body of Traditional Economic Theory is… that it is wrong on many levels as well. But, like Newtonian Physics, Traditional Economic Theory (and particularly micro-economics) does a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us; not everything, mind you, but a lot. Now, Newtonian Physics does a better job of explaining physical phenomena than Traditional Economics does of explaining “production, distribution and consumption”… but the point remains the same. They are both bodies of theory that are wrong, but nonetheless fairly useful (if judiciously applied, of course).

One obvious example is the Theory of Supply and Demand. It’s not a perfect theory, obviously, or it wouldn’t be a theory, it would be an axiom. Nevertheless, until someone shows me more than a tiny handful of upward sloping demand curves, I’m going to contend that the Theory of Supply and Demand is quite robust and explains a hell of a lot of what we see happening in the world around us. Likewise, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong, and even dangerous when over-applied (as we’ve seen). But… it still explains a fair amount of what we witness in financial markets, so it’s not completely useless when applied in moderation.

So, I agree that much of economics is pseudo science. And while I’ll agree with you that there’s too much math in economics and that such math makes a lot of economic theory appear to be more legitimate than it really is, this doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that economics is useless. It’s just not as useful as lots of folks (economists, Wall Street, et al) would like us to believe, which has led to a shitpile of problems.

In my view, (2) is a cop out and pure intellectual laziness. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t need to understand the foundations or details of the topic we’re discussing because that entire body of theory is bunk. My theories are the reality.” My comment would be that if you don’t fully understand the theories… how do you really know they’re bunk? It’s awfully convenient just to say, “Oh, I don’t need to understand all that stuff – it’s all bullshit. THIS is the reality.” As I’ve noted in a few different threads, it’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about a topic when it’s obvious that one person doesn’t even understand the basics. In your eyes, however, an understanding of the basics isn’t just unnecessary – it’s a hindrance! “I know nothing, therefore I know everything!” How convenient…

I have a few problems with (3). One issue is that of certainty. If you were to present FASA as a possibility, that would be one thing. Or even a high probability. But you present it as a fait accompli, a done deal, a 100% certainty. And anyone who doesn’t agree with you “doesn’t get it.” You present the “impossiblehampster” and declare, “End of discussion.” I view it as the beginning of a discussion (or perhaps the middle).

So, on the subject of long-term sustainable growth (“LTSG”), you think “the end is nigh,” so to speak. In fact, you’re certain of it. I, on the other hand, think the future is quite uncertain where LTSG is concerned. Could LTSG last for another 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Perhaps. Longer? Maybe, maybe not – it just depends on a lot of random factors. But there’s one thing I do know: humans have proven themselves quite adaptable and innovative. I’m quite certain that not many folks living in 1930 would have imagined that 40 years later we’d send a man to the moon. (I’m sure Malthus would be shocked that the human race has made it this far given the size of our population.) Likewise, almost every major invention throughout history has been a “surprise” – such is the nature of invention – from electricity to nuclear power. My point being that we don’t know what kind of innovation we’re going to see over the next few decades that might change the face of energy usage dramatically for the better. We have no idea. You believe FASA is imminent and a certainty. I believe it is merely one possibility and that if it does occur, it’s likely several decades into the future. Is it a much higher likelihood longer term (let’s say 25+ years) if we don’t come up with some major innovations in the energy area? Yes. But is it a CERTAINTY – as you portray it – over any particular period of time? Nope. Because we just don’t know what’s going to happen on the technology front… we simply have no idea. And that’s my problem with many of your arguments: you seem more certain of everything than I am of anything.

Obviously, feel free to correct me where I’ve misrepresented your beliefs.

[davelj]

Now, Arraya, what I’m going to attempt to do here is frame what I THINK you believe (well, the highlights at least) and compare it with what I believe, along with some commentary. That way, we might be able to avoid some of the back-and-forth over minutiae.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the following are some of your core beliefs where global economics is concerned (based on your posts):

(1) Economics is a “pseudo science… guess work with a wishing aspect,” (to use your words) and, as such, is useless (to study, apply, etc.).
(2) An understanding of “traditional” economics and finance is counterproductive in understanding how the world “really” works. I quote: “Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance [sic].”
(3) The Financial And Social Apocalypse (“FASA” for short) is upon us and will, for all intents and purposes, take down the world as we know it in relatively short order (I’m guessing your time horizon is less than 10 years). In your eyes, this is not a possibility, it is a certainty.

Where (1) is concerned, I’m going to use the analogy of Newtonian Physics. Q: What’s the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Newtonian Physics? A: It’s wrong; Einsteinian Physics supplanted it. But despite the fact that Newtonian Physics is “wrong,” it happens to do a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us. Likewise, one thing we know about the body of Traditional Economic Theory is… that it is wrong on many levels as well. But, like Newtonian Physics, Traditional Economic Theory (and particularly micro-economics) does a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us; not everything, mind you, but a lot. Now, Newtonian Physics does a better job of explaining physical phenomena than Traditional Economics does of explaining “production, distribution and consumption”… but the point remains the same. They are both bodies of theory that are wrong, but nonetheless fairly useful (if judiciously applied, of course).

One obvious example is the Theory of Supply and Demand. It’s not a perfect theory, obviously, or it wouldn’t be a theory, it would be an axiom. Nevertheless, until someone shows me more than a tiny handful of upward sloping demand curves, I’m going to contend that the Theory of Supply and Demand is quite robust and explains a hell of a lot of what we see happening in the world around us. Likewise, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong, and even dangerous when over-applied (as we’ve seen). But… it still explains a fair amount of what we witness in financial markets, so it’s not completely useless when applied in moderation.

So, I agree that much of economics is pseudo science. And while I’ll agree with you that there’s too much math in economics and that such math makes a lot of economic theory appear to be more legitimate than it really is, this doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that economics is useless. It’s just not as useful as lots of folks (economists, Wall Street, et al) would like us to believe, which has led to a shitpile of problems.

In my view, (2) is a cop out and pure intellectual laziness. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t need to understand the foundations or details of the topic we’re discussing because that entire body of theory is bunk. My theories are the reality.” My comment would be that if you don’t fully understand the theories… how do you really know they’re bunk? It’s awfully convenient just to say, “Oh, I don’t need to understand all that stuff – it’s all bullshit. THIS is the reality.” As I’ve noted in a few different threads, it’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about a topic when it’s obvious that one person doesn’t even understand the basics. In your eyes, however, an understanding of the basics isn’t just unnecessary – it’s a hindrance! “I know nothing, therefore I know everything!” How convenient…

I have a few problems with (3). One issue is that of certainty. If you were to present FASA as a possibility, that would be one thing. Or even a high probability. But you present it as a fait accompli, a done deal, a 100% certainty. And anyone who doesn’t agree with you “doesn’t get it.” You present the “impossiblehampster” and declare, “End of discussion.” I view it as the beginning of a discussion (or perhaps the middle).

So, on the subject of long-term sustainable growth (“LTSG”), you think “the end is nigh,” so to speak. In fact, you’re certain of it. I, on the other hand, think the future is quite uncertain where LTSG is concerned. Could LTSG last for another 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Perhaps. Longer? Maybe, maybe not – it just depends on a lot of random factors. But there’s one thing I do know: humans have proven themselves quite adaptable and innovative. I’m quite certain that not many folks living in 1930 would have imagined that 40 years later we’d send a man to the moon. (I’m sure Malthus would be shocked that the human race has made it this far given the size of our population.) Likewise, almost every major invention throughout history has been a “surprise” – such is the nature of invention – from electricity to nuclear power. My point being that we don’t know what kind of innovation we’re going to see over the next few decades that might change the face of energy usage dramatically for the better. We have no idea. You believe FASA is imminent and a certainty. I believe it is merely one possibility and that if it does occur, it’s likely several decades into the future. Is it a much higher likelihood longer term (let’s say 25+ years) if we don’t come up with some major innovations in the energy area? Yes. But is it a CERTAINTY – as you portray it – over any particular period of time? Nope. Because we just don’t know what’s going to happen on the technology front… we simply have no idea. And that’s my problem with many of your arguments: you seem more certain of everything than I am of anything.

Obviously, feel free to correct me where I’ve misrepresented your beliefs.

[davelj]

Now, Arraya, what I’m going to attempt to do here is frame what I THINK you believe (well, the highlights at least) and compare it with what I believe, along with some commentary. That way, we might be able to avoid some of the back-and-forth over minutiae.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the following are some of your core beliefs where global economics is concerned (based on your posts):

(1) Economics is a “pseudo science… guess work with a wishing aspect,” (to use your words) and, as such, is useless (to study, apply, etc.).
(2) An understanding of “traditional” economics and finance is counterproductive in understanding how the world “really” works. I quote: “Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance [sic].”
(3) The Financial And Social Apocalypse (“FASA” for short) is upon us and will, for all intents and purposes, take down the world as we know it in relatively short order (I’m guessing your time horizon is less than 10 years). In your eyes, this is not a possibility, it is a certainty.

Where (1) is concerned, I’m going to use the analogy of Newtonian Physics. Q: What’s the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Newtonian Physics? A: It’s wrong; Einsteinian Physics supplanted it. But despite the fact that Newtonian Physics is “wrong,” it happens to do a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us. Likewise, one thing we know about the body of Traditional Economic Theory is… that it is wrong on many levels as well. But, like Newtonian Physics, Traditional Economic Theory (and particularly micro-economics) does a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us; not everything, mind you, but a lot. Now, Newtonian Physics does a better job of explaining physical phenomena than Traditional Economics does of explaining “production, distribution and consumption”… but the point remains the same. They are both bodies of theory that are wrong, but nonetheless fairly useful (if judiciously applied, of course).

One obvious example is the Theory of Supply and Demand. It’s not a perfect theory, obviously, or it wouldn’t be a theory, it would be an axiom. Nevertheless, until someone shows me more than a tiny handful of upward sloping demand curves, I’m going to contend that the Theory of Supply and Demand is quite robust and explains a hell of a lot of what we see happening in the world around us. Likewise, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong, and even dangerous when over-applied (as we’ve seen). But… it still explains a fair amount of what we witness in financial markets, so it’s not completely useless when applied in moderation.

So, I agree that much of economics is pseudo science. And while I’ll agree with you that there’s too much math in economics and that such math makes a lot of economic theory appear to be more legitimate than it really is, this doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that economics is useless. It’s just not as useful as lots of folks (economists, Wall Street, et al) would like us to believe, which has led to a shitpile of problems.

In my view, (2) is a cop out and pure intellectual laziness. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t need to understand the foundations or details of the topic we’re discussing because that entire body of theory is bunk. My theories are the reality.” My comment would be that if you don’t fully understand the theories… how do you really know they’re bunk? It’s awfully convenient just to say, “Oh, I don’t need to understand all that stuff – it’s all bullshit. THIS is the reality.” As I’ve noted in a few different threads, it’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about a topic when it’s obvious that one person doesn’t even understand the basics. In your eyes, however, an understanding of the basics isn’t just unnecessary – it’s a hindrance! “I know nothing, therefore I know everything!” How convenient…

I have a few problems with (3). One issue is that of certainty. If you were to present FASA as a possibility, that would be one thing. Or even a high probability. But you present it as a fait accompli, a done deal, a 100% certainty. And anyone who doesn’t agree with you “doesn’t get it.” You present the “impossiblehampster” and declare, “End of discussion.” I view it as the beginning of a discussion (or perhaps the middle).

So, on the subject of long-term sustainable growth (“LTSG”), you think “the end is nigh,” so to speak. In fact, you’re certain of it. I, on the other hand, think the future is quite uncertain where LTSG is concerned. Could LTSG last for another 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Perhaps. Longer? Maybe, maybe not – it just depends on a lot of random factors. But there’s one thing I do know: humans have proven themselves quite adaptable and innovative. I’m quite certain that not many folks living in 1930 would have imagined that 40 years later we’d send a man to the moon. (I’m sure Malthus would be shocked that the human race has made it this far given the size of our population.) Likewise, almost every major invention throughout history has been a “surprise” – such is the nature of invention – from electricity to nuclear power. My point being that we don’t know what kind of innovation we’re going to see over the next few decades that might change the face of energy usage dramatically for the better. We have no idea. You believe FASA is imminent and a certainty. I believe it is merely one possibility and that if it does occur, it’s likely several decades into the future. Is it a much higher likelihood longer term (let’s say 25+ years) if we don’t come up with some major innovations in the energy area? Yes. But is it a CERTAINTY – as you portray it – over any particular period of time? Nope. Because we just don’t know what’s going to happen on the technology front… we simply have no idea. And that’s my problem with many of your arguments: you seem more certain of everything than I am of anything.

Obviously, feel free to correct me where I’ve misrepresented your beliefs.

[davelj]

Now, Arraya, what I’m going to attempt to do here is frame what I THINK you believe (well, the highlights at least) and compare it with what I believe, along with some commentary. That way, we might be able to avoid some of the back-and-forth over minutiae.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the following are some of your core beliefs where global economics is concerned (based on your posts):

(1) Economics is a “pseudo science… guess work with a wishing aspect,” (to use your words) and, as such, is useless (to study, apply, etc.).
(2) An understanding of “traditional” economics and finance is counterproductive in understanding how the world “really” works. I quote: “Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance [sic].”
(3) The Financial And Social Apocalypse (“FASA” for short) is upon us and will, for all intents and purposes, take down the world as we know it in relatively short order (I’m guessing your time horizon is less than 10 years). In your eyes, this is not a possibility, it is a certainty.

Where (1) is concerned, I’m going to use the analogy of Newtonian Physics. Q: What’s the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Newtonian Physics? A: It’s wrong; Einsteinian Physics supplanted it. But despite the fact that Newtonian Physics is “wrong,” it happens to do a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us. Likewise, one thing we know about the body of Traditional Economic Theory is… that it is wrong on many levels as well. But, like Newtonian Physics, Traditional Economic Theory (and particularly micro-economics) does a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us; not everything, mind you, but a lot. Now, Newtonian Physics does a better job of explaining physical phenomena than Traditional Economics does of explaining “production, distribution and consumption”… but the point remains the same. They are both bodies of theory that are wrong, but nonetheless fairly useful (if judiciously applied, of course).

One obvious example is the Theory of Supply and Demand. It’s not a perfect theory, obviously, or it wouldn’t be a theory, it would be an axiom. Nevertheless, until someone shows me more than a tiny handful of upward sloping demand curves, I’m going to contend that the Theory of Supply and Demand is quite robust and explains a hell of a lot of what we see happening in the world around us. Likewise, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong, and even dangerous when over-applied (as we’ve seen). But… it still explains a fair amount of what we witness in financial markets, so it’s not completely useless when applied in moderation.

So, I agree that much of economics is pseudo science. And while I’ll agree with you that there’s too much math in economics and that such math makes a lot of economic theory appear to be more legitimate than it really is, this doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that economics is useless. It’s just not as useful as lots of folks (economists, Wall Street, et al) would like us to believe, which has led to a shitpile of problems.

In my view, (2) is a cop out and pure intellectual laziness. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t need to understand the foundations or details of the topic we’re discussing because that entire body of theory is bunk. My theories are the reality.” My comment would be that if you don’t fully understand the theories… how do you really know they’re bunk? It’s awfully convenient just to say, “Oh, I don’t need to understand all that stuff – it’s all bullshit. THIS is the reality.” As I’ve noted in a few different threads, it’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about a topic when it’s obvious that one person doesn’t even understand the basics. In your eyes, however, an understanding of the basics isn’t just unnecessary – it’s a hindrance! “I know nothing, therefore I know everything!” How convenient…

I have a few problems with (3). One issue is that of certainty. If you were to present FASA as a possibility, that would be one thing. Or even a high probability. But you present it as a fait accompli, a done deal, a 100% certainty. And anyone who doesn’t agree with you “doesn’t get it.” You present the “impossiblehampster” and declare, “End of discussion.” I view it as the beginning of a discussion (or perhaps the middle).

So, on the subject of long-term sustainable growth (“LTSG”), you think “the end is nigh,” so to speak. In fact, you’re certain of it. I, on the other hand, think the future is quite uncertain where LTSG is concerned. Could LTSG last for another 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Perhaps. Longer? Maybe, maybe not – it just depends on a lot of random factors. But there’s one thing I do know: humans have proven themselves quite adaptable and innovative. I’m quite certain that not many folks living in 1930 would have imagined that 40 years later we’d send a man to the moon. (I’m sure Malthus would be shocked that the human race has made it this far given the size of our population.) Likewise, almost every major invention throughout history has been a “surprise” – such is the nature of invention – from electricity to nuclear power. My point being that we don’t know what kind of innovation we’re going to see over the next few decades that might change the face of energy usage dramatically for the better. We have no idea. You believe FASA is imminent and a certainty. I believe it is merely one possibility and that if it does occur, it’s likely several decades into the future. Is it a much higher likelihood longer term (let’s say 25+ years) if we don’t come up with some major innovations in the energy area? Yes. But is it a CERTAINTY – as you portray it – over any particular period of time? Nope. Because we just don’t know what’s going to happen on the technology front… we simply have no idea. And that’s my problem with many of your arguments: you seem more certain of everything than I am of anything.

Obviously, feel free to correct me where I’ve misrepresented your beliefs.

[davelj]

Now, Arraya, what I’m going to attempt to do here is frame what I THINK you believe (well, the highlights at least) and compare it with what I believe, along with some commentary. That way, we might be able to avoid some of the back-and-forth over minutiae.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the following are some of your core beliefs where global economics is concerned (based on your posts):

(1) Economics is a “pseudo science… guess work with a wishing aspect,” (to use your words) and, as such, is useless (to study, apply, etc.).
(2) An understanding of “traditional” economics and finance is counterproductive in understanding how the world “really” works. I quote: “Intricacies of finance are not really necessary to see where this is going. Actually it is probably a hinderance [sic].”
(3) The Financial And Social Apocalypse (“FASA” for short) is upon us and will, for all intents and purposes, take down the world as we know it in relatively short order (I’m guessing your time horizon is less than 10 years). In your eyes, this is not a possibility, it is a certainty.

Where (1) is concerned, I’m going to use the analogy of Newtonian Physics. Q: What’s the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Newtonian Physics? A: It’s wrong; Einsteinian Physics supplanted it. But despite the fact that Newtonian Physics is “wrong,” it happens to do a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us. Likewise, one thing we know about the body of Traditional Economic Theory is… that it is wrong on many levels as well. But, like Newtonian Physics, Traditional Economic Theory (and particularly micro-economics) does a very good job of explaining a lot of what we see around us; not everything, mind you, but a lot. Now, Newtonian Physics does a better job of explaining physical phenomena than Traditional Economics does of explaining “production, distribution and consumption”… but the point remains the same. They are both bodies of theory that are wrong, but nonetheless fairly useful (if judiciously applied, of course).

One obvious example is the Theory of Supply and Demand. It’s not a perfect theory, obviously, or it wouldn’t be a theory, it would be an axiom. Nevertheless, until someone shows me more than a tiny handful of upward sloping demand curves, I’m going to contend that the Theory of Supply and Demand is quite robust and explains a hell of a lot of what we see happening in the world around us. Likewise, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong, and even dangerous when over-applied (as we’ve seen). But… it still explains a fair amount of what we witness in financial markets, so it’s not completely useless when applied in moderation.

So, I agree that much of economics is pseudo science. And while I’ll agree with you that there’s too much math in economics and that such math makes a lot of economic theory appear to be more legitimate than it really is, this doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that economics is useless. It’s just not as useful as lots of folks (economists, Wall Street, et al) would like us to believe, which has led to a shitpile of problems.

In my view, (2) is a cop out and pure intellectual laziness. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t need to understand the foundations or details of the topic we’re discussing because that entire body of theory is bunk. My theories are the reality.” My comment would be that if you don’t fully understand the theories… how do you really know they’re bunk? It’s awfully convenient just to say, “Oh, I don’t need to understand all that stuff – it’s all bullshit. THIS is the reality.” As I’ve noted in a few different threads, it’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about a topic when it’s obvious that one person doesn’t even understand the basics. In your eyes, however, an understanding of the basics isn’t just unnecessary – it’s a hindrance! “I know nothing, therefore I know everything!” How convenient…

I have a few problems with (3). One issue is that of certainty. If you were to present FASA as a possibility, that would be one thing. Or even a high probability. But you present it as a fait accompli, a done deal, a 100% certainty. And anyone who doesn’t agree with you “doesn’t get it.” You present the “impossiblehampster” and declare, “End of discussion.” I view it as the beginning of a discussion (or perhaps the middle).

So, on the subject of long-term sustainable growth (“LTSG”), you think “the end is nigh,” so to speak. In fact, you’re certain of it. I, on the other hand, think the future is quite uncertain where LTSG is concerned. Could LTSG last for another 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Perhaps. Longer? Maybe, maybe not – it just depends on a lot of random factors. But there’s one thing I do know: humans have proven themselves quite adaptable and innovative. I’m quite certain that not many folks living in 1930 would have imagined that 40 years later we’d send a man to the moon. (I’m sure Malthus would be shocked that the human race has made it this far given the size of our population.) Likewise, almost every major invention throughout history has been a “surprise” – such is the nature of invention – from electricity to nuclear power. My point being that we don’t know what kind of innovation we’re going to see over the next few decades that might change the face of energy usage dramatically for the better. We have no idea. You believe FASA is imminent and a certainty. I believe it is merely one possibility and that if it does occur, it’s likely several decades into the future. Is it a much higher likelihood longer term (let’s say 25+ years) if we don’t come up with some major innovations in the energy area? Yes. But is it a CERTAINTY – as you portray it – over any particular period of time? Nope. Because we just don’t know what’s going to happen on the technology front… we simply have no idea. And that’s my problem with many of your arguments: you seem more certain of everything than I am of anything.

Obviously, feel free to correct me where I’ve misrepresented your beliefs.

[Arraya]

Math is not really a science, it’s a tool. Actually that has been a long philosophical question. I’d say the consensus is no because it is not experimentally falsifiable. It is in a world all it’s own.

Economics comes from a time before physical sciences were understood and math has been around for thousands of years. It was the religious that started mathematics and ironically banking as well in the temples of the ancient world. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Sumer and Babylonia, then grew rapidly in ancient Greece. Mathematics written in ancient Greek was translated into Arabic. About the same time mathematics of the Vedics in India was blossoming. Actually, it’s currently understood that the ancient indians may have taught the greeks geometry.

Modern science started with the inception of the scientific method in middle ages, Persia. Everything before hand is considered prescience, amongst philosophy of science types.

Which leads to the biggest fundamental problem with modern economic thought. It has no connection and is scientifically blind to the physical world. It deals a little to much in perception rather than facts. Until that is rectified bad times and constant crises for all. This is not an environmental rant, it’s just common sense. The price point mechanism with currency as it’s unit has very little insight on the natural order things.

Anyway, I’m done with this thread, for now, because it’s giving me a headache. Ill be back later to address some points.

Modern money and it’s relationship to energy is the destructor in the short-medium term. Though it will not be advertised that way

[Arraya]

Math is not really a science, it’s a tool. Actually that has been a long philosophical question. I’d say the consensus is no because it is not experimentally falsifiable. It is in a world all it’s own.

Economics comes from a time before physical sciences were understood and math has been around for thousands of years. It was the religious that started mathematics and ironically banking as well in the temples of the ancient world. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Sumer and Babylonia, then grew rapidly in ancient Greece. Mathematics written in ancient Greek was translated into Arabic. About the same time mathematics of the Vedics in India was blossoming. Actually, it’s currently understood that the ancient indians may have taught the greeks geometry.

Modern science started with the inception of the scientific method in middle ages, Persia. Everything before hand is considered prescience, amongst philosophy of science types.

Which leads to the biggest fundamental problem with modern economic thought. It has no connection and is scientifically blind to the physical world. It deals a little to much in perception rather than facts. Until that is rectified bad times and constant crises for all. This is not an environmental rant, it’s just common sense. The price point mechanism with currency as it’s unit has very little insight on the natural order things.

Anyway, I’m done with this thread, for now, because it’s giving me a headache. Ill be back later to address some points.

Modern money and it’s relationship to energy is the destructor in the short-medium term. Though it will not be advertised that way

[Arraya]

Math is not really a science, it’s a tool. Actually that has been a long philosophical question. I’d say the consensus is no because it is not experimentally falsifiable. It is in a world all it’s own.

Economics comes from a time before physical sciences were understood and math has been around for thousands of years. It was the religious that started mathematics and ironically banking as well in the temples of the ancient world. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Sumer and Babylonia, then grew rapidly in ancient Greece. Mathematics written in ancient Greek was translated into Arabic. About the same time mathematics of the Vedics in India was blossoming. Actually, it’s currently understood that the ancient indians may have taught the greeks geometry.

Modern science started with the inception of the scientific method in middle ages, Persia. Everything before hand is considered prescience, amongst philosophy of science types.

Which leads to the biggest fundamental problem with modern economic thought. It has no connection and is scientifically blind to the physical world. It deals a little to much in perception rather than facts. Until that is rectified bad times and constant crises for all. This is not an environmental rant, it’s just common sense. The price point mechanism with currency as it’s unit has very little insight on the natural order things.

Anyway, I’m done with this thread, for now, because it’s giving me a headache. Ill be back later to address some points.

Modern money and it’s relationship to energy is the destructor in the short-medium term. Though it will not be advertised that way

[Arraya]

Math is not really a science, it’s a tool. Actually that has been a long philosophical question. I’d say the consensus is no because it is not experimentally falsifiable. It is in a world all it’s own.

Economics comes from a time before physical sciences were understood and math has been around for thousands of years. It was the religious that started mathematics and ironically banking as well in the temples of the ancient world. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Sumer and Babylonia, then grew rapidly in ancient Greece. Mathematics written in ancient Greek was translated into Arabic. About the same time mathematics of the Vedics in India was blossoming. Actually, it’s currently understood that the ancient indians may have taught the greeks geometry.

Modern science started with the inception of the scientific method in middle ages, Persia. Everything before hand is considered prescience, amongst philosophy of science types.

Which leads to the biggest fundamental problem with modern economic thought. It has no connection and is scientifically blind to the physical world. It deals a little to much in perception rather than facts. Until that is rectified bad times and constant crises for all. This is not an environmental rant, it’s just common sense. The price point mechanism with currency as it’s unit has very little insight on the natural order things.

Anyway, I’m done with this thread, for now, because it’s giving me a headache. Ill be back later to address some points.

Modern money and it’s relationship to energy is the destructor in the short-medium term. Though it will not be advertised that way

[Author]

Posts