Sustainable growth limits

[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.

[4plexowner]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill …

~

I sometimes wonder if it isn’t the same with the gold standard – it is the worst form of monetary system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried

[4plexowner]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill …

~

I sometimes wonder if it isn’t the same with the gold standard – it is the worst form of monetary system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried

[4plexowner]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill …

~

I sometimes wonder if it isn’t the same with the gold standard – it is the worst form of monetary system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried

[4plexowner]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill …

~

I sometimes wonder if it isn’t the same with the gold standard – it is the worst form of monetary system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried

[4plexowner]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill …

~

I sometimes wonder if it isn’t the same with the gold standard – it is the worst form of monetary system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried

[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 growth (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 you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.

[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 growth (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 you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.

[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 growth (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 you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.

[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 growth (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 you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.

[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 growth (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 you don’t understand this is… well… it explains a lot.

[davelj]

[quote=barnaby33]develj I’d amend your formula as such: Productive Population Growth + Productivity Growth. Ethiopia had a population explosion in the 80’s, but it wasn’t productive. In fact it dragged Ethiopia down, (as does much of Africa’s population) relative to each countries economic capacity.
[/quote]

That’s a good point. For a large industrial country, GDP growth will be Population Growth + Productivity Growth (over the long term). Also, Global GDP growth will follow the formula as well. But, yes, you’re right in that certain smaller really chaotic undeveloped countries will not follow the formula – as it needs to be adjusted for the chaos.

[davelj]

[quote=barnaby33]develj I’d amend your formula as such: Productive Population Growth + Productivity Growth. Ethiopia had a population explosion in the 80’s, but it wasn’t productive. In fact it dragged Ethiopia down, (as does much of Africa’s population) relative to each countries economic capacity.
[/quote]

That’s a good point. For a large industrial country, GDP growth will be Population Growth + Productivity Growth (over the long term). Also, Global GDP growth will follow the formula as well. But, yes, you’re right in that certain smaller really chaotic undeveloped countries will not follow the formula – as it needs to be adjusted for the chaos.

[davelj]

[quote=barnaby33]develj I’d amend your formula as such: Productive Population Growth + Productivity Growth. Ethiopia had a population explosion in the 80’s, but it wasn’t productive. In fact it dragged Ethiopia down, (as does much of Africa’s population) relative to each countries economic capacity.
[/quote]

That’s a good point. For a large industrial country, GDP growth will be Population Growth + Productivity Growth (over the long term). Also, Global GDP growth will follow the formula as well. But, yes, you’re right in that certain smaller really chaotic undeveloped countries will not follow the formula – as it needs to be adjusted for the chaos.

[davelj]

[quote=barnaby33]develj I’d amend your formula as such: Productive Population Growth + Productivity Growth. Ethiopia had a population explosion in the 80’s, but it wasn’t productive. In fact it dragged Ethiopia down, (as does much of Africa’s population) relative to each countries economic capacity.
[/quote]

That’s a good point. For a large industrial country, GDP growth will be Population Growth + Productivity Growth (over the long term). Also, Global GDP growth will follow the formula as well. But, yes, you’re right in that certain smaller really chaotic undeveloped countries will not follow the formula – as it needs to be adjusted for the chaos.

[Author]

Posts