Sustainable growth limits

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

So, yes, your inability write clearly did confuse me.

.[/quote]

So, “economics” is so broad a word that I could have been talking about some obscure communist economics and not the prevailing ethos that govern the fist world today. And that is what made you have no idea what I was talking about. Come on, you can do better than that.

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.

[scaredyclassic]

we could have sustainable personal growth. Like, if growth is defined as becoming wiser, more enlightened, more muscular.

[scaredyclassic]

we could have sustainable personal growth. Like, if growth is defined as becoming wiser, more enlightened, more muscular.

[scaredyclassic]

we could have sustainable personal growth. Like, if growth is defined as becoming wiser, more enlightened, more muscular.

[scaredyclassic]

we could have sustainable personal growth. Like, if growth is defined as becoming wiser, more enlightened, more muscular.

[scaredyclassic]

we could have sustainable personal growth. Like, if growth is defined as becoming wiser, more enlightened, more muscular.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts