Perpetual economic growth

[Mulholland]

@@Mulholland

I think the two are definatley interrelated.
No, they are not directly related. They are inversely related. Read my post. Economic growth reduces birthrates. Period.

I understand that economic growth reduces birthrates Jericho, I'm not a tard-box. But that occurs after a certain point in the development of a country. Agricultural growth is economic growth and It increases carrying capacity.

Why did we see such a population boom during the agricultural revolution? Because people had more food to feed their children, and birth control was frowned upon by the state.

Id say it's not necessarily economic growth that reduces population per-se but modern liberal society which accepts birth control and the education of women.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Fuel costs wouldn't do this because as prices rise, alternatives will be developed, and eventually prices will fall. Every industry goes through this process.

Infrastructure investment was the way to improve a developing economy into a developed one. Developed economies are going to improve their growth not through infrastructure creation (they have that), but infrastructure maintenance and technological (knowledge) innovation.

This isn't completely true. Upgrading from a 100 km/h railway that shares track with freight to a 350 km/h railway could definitely effect growth and reduce costs. Of course there are diminishing returns, but it is possible that the technological innovation could lead to a massive transportation/infrastructure breakthrough (2,000 km/h hyper mag-tube) that would encourage a complete rebuilding of the transportation systems everywhere.

 

[Mulholland]

The size of the population doesn't matter for developed economies! Growth isn't just pop based in a modern economy. Look at the difference between third-world, developing world, and developed world economies!
One relies on returns to labor to improve their economy, the other two don't.

You've just accepted a point that goes contrary to what you've stated. Over time, as an economy grows, its birth rates decline, because returns to labor begin to be overshadowed by returns to capital, education, technology, and endogenous factors.

I'm talking about the nuts and bolts Jericho not the blueprint. I'm talking about where we came from you're talking about where we are. I think we agree, but I think there's a communication barrier between us.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Therefor, we can jump straight to the following conclusion.

Economic growth and development by a particular group of people becomes a method of self-elimination, since that group's population growth turns into a decline. That would jive very well with fears that the US will turn into Mexico and Europe will turn into Arabia, meaning that white people will eventually become extinct or extremely rare.

No, ARELIGIOUS white people will become rare. Then as more and more kids are schooled in christian creationist schools, their science abilities begin to seriously falter. They lose the ability to maintain the economy they have, and the whole country reverts back into a less developed state. In this state, population growth spikes again, and white people are back.

As for the greater population =/= greater economic ability, that is not COMPLETELY true. Some higher order economic activities require a certain critical mass of population. It may not a linear relationship, but a city like New York will always be able to produce greater per capita wealth than some hermit isolated in a forest. But at the scale of modern economies, the return to labour thingy is that right thingy.

 

[JerichoHill]

I understand that economic growth reduces birthrates Jericho, I'm not a tard-box. But that occurs after a certain point in the development of a country. Agricultural growth is economic growth and It increases carrying capacity.

Why did we see such a population boom during the agricultural revolution? Because people had more food to feed their children, and birth control was frowned upon by the state.

Id say it's not necessarily economic growth that reduces population per-se but modern liberal society which accepts birth control and the education of women.

But we're well past agri-based economies. Most economies are now trying to get to developed or developing status, so labor growth is not as important, dig?

 

[JohnRM]

In my opinion, economic growth is not sustainable. We've more than likely exceeded the population carrying capacity of the planet already. When world oil production begins to decline within the next few years, then our ability to sustain current food production levels will decline. Now, either people are going to have to eat less (or more of what takes less energy to produce) or we are going to have to begin shaving our population at some point. The world cannot sustain any more than the roughly billion of us whom are living at the OECD standards for very long.

I know that a lot of you are going to come back with claims about tar sands oil and oil shale, but until there is an economically sound way to extract those heavy, high sulfur oils and refine them, then I don't want to hear about it. Right now, they VERY FEW operations at work to do the job are doing so using high amounts of natural gas. The prices of natural gas have skyrocketted since 2002 and they don't look to be coming back. World production capacity is max'ed out and the ability for tar sands and oil shale to remain a viable option economically are looking very grim.

Some of you might also want to tout hydrogen, but before you do, the cheapest and only economically viable way to do it is to break down natural gas to extract hydrogen from that. No other method is commercially viable.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Because its a good thing to improve the well being of humanity? Because we're an ever curious, innovative species? Because eventually economic growth will solve the problems it created (global warming) and lead us to leave this planet?

Jericho, ok, I think I understand where youre coming from. Its sort of like when people say that science will solve the problems that science creates. I dont necessarily disagree with that, but I cant help thinking that there has to be a limit at some point, beyond which no further growth can occur.

What if for instance we dont leave this planet soon enough, and the ill effects of perpetual growth get us first? The Earth is after all a finite system. Theres no guarantee that our economic model will save us before it dooms us, is there?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I know that a lot of you are going to come back with claims about tar sands oil and oil shale, but until there is an economically sound way to extract those heavy, high sulfur oils and refine them, then I don't want to hear about it. Right now, they VERY FEW operations at work to do the job are doing so using high amounts of natural gas. The prices of natural gas have skyrocketted since 2002 and they don't look to be coming back. World production capacity is max'ed out and the ability for tar sands and oil shale to remain a viable option economically are looking very grim.

Actually, natural gas prices shedded something like 30 percent of their price last year. Lots of drilling operations in Alberta became uneconomical...

However, your point is still correct. The tar sands also require a ridiculous amount of fresh water (though that COULD change) in addition to natural gas.... oh, and they are talking about building a couple nuclear reactors just to power the operation of extracting the oil. These are all limiters to how much it can be expanded in Alberta. It may supplement supply, but until they solve these problems and also deal with the GHG problem associated with it, there is no way it can really replace supply.

 

[Mulholland]

But we're well past agri-based economies. Most economies are now trying to get to developed or developing status, so labor growth is not as important, dig?

Yeah. I dig...I don't know if you're trying to sound condescending, but if you are it's working.

So we need at least the replacement rate to have a sustainable economy into the future right? Whether that be from immigration or by natrual birth rate, right?
So in the end population is of importance. Perhaps not a massive driver of modern economies but important nonetheless. Take China for example, as the pool of labour shrinks due employment and population control wages go up and it loses it's competitive advantage.
Further, the US has had trouble filling jobs because of it's low population growth rate, thus boosting wages and giving economies like China and India that competetive advantage.
All I'm asking for is for you to agree with me that an increase or decrease in population is an important driver for even a modern economy.

 

[JohnRM]

Actually, natural gas prices shedded something like 30 percent of their price last year. Lots of drilling operations in Alberta became uneconomical...

However, your point is still correct. The tar sands also require a ridiculous amount of fresh water (though that COULD change) in addition to natural gas.... oh, and they are talking about building a couple nuclear reactors just to power the operation of extracting the oil. These are all limiters to how much it can be expanded in Alberta. It may supplement supply, but until they solve these problems and also deal with the GHG problem associated with it, there is no way it can really replace supply.

Another limiting factor is the fact that where these tar sands and oil shale are, there is nobody to operate these large facilities. There are no towns or cities to provide the workforce to do the job. That has been a huge problem whereas the idea of using nuclear power is concerned.

 

[Mulholland]

So before I derail this thread I'm just wondering about what Sobeski and I were talking about earlier.

Assuming we have a static global popualtion. Is economic growth necessary other than just to improve peoples standard of living? I was under the impression that growth was necessary to offset capital depreciation? Can we achieve an average 'static growth' in which GDP increases on average at the same rate as capital depreciation?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Uh, guys, the fundamentals of the global economic system far predate the current concerns over energy. In fact, they can be said to have created those concerns.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Another limiting factor is the fact that where these tar sands and oil shale are, there is nobody to operate these large facilities. There are no towns or cities to provide the workforce to do the job. That has been a huge problem whereas the idea of using nuclear power is concerned.

Yup. Ft. McMurray, Alberta (the main city centre in the tar sands area) has had a MASSIVE building boom to cope, but it still has the highest rent and house prices in all of Canada. You could make 20 dollars an hour working at Tim Horton's with a 1000 dollar signing bonus up there, yet they can't find anyone to do it. You get kids walking out of high school, and if they are willing to go up north, they can make 40-60 grand in their first year.

There have been plans to build a high speed rail line from Calgary to Edmonton for a while, but recently the city suggested it should go all the way to Fort McMurray just to handle the commuters and take building pressure off of the city (allowing people to more easily live in Edmonton/Calgary and work up north for periods of time)

Another city, Grand Prairies has grown something like 50 percent in 4 years.

 

[JerichoHill]

All I'm asking for is for you to agree with me that an increase or decrease in population is an important driver for even a modern economy.

Not trying to be condescening. Apologies. Busy day.

Population growth is a driver, but one of many, and not the most important one by far, for economic growth in developed/developing economies.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ive gotten only one answer from an economist about why perpetual growth is good (Jericho)

Anyone else?

 

[brennan]

People will always want more stuff. For everyone to have more, GDP must increase or population must fall.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

People will always want more stuff. For everyone to have more, GDP must increase or population must fall.

This probably says it all.

 

[EdwardTking]

Some of you might also want to tout hydrogen, but before you do, the cheapest and only economically viable way to do it is to break down natural gas to extract hydrogen from that. No other method is commercially viable.

Actually prior to about 1967 most of the gas consumed in UK houses e.g.
for heating and cooking was created from passing steam over coal:

C + H20 = CO + H2 (known as town gas)

As peak coal is further away than peak oil and natural gas,
this technology may come back into operation, in some places

But there won't be enough hydrogen to power mass car ownership.

 

[JohnRM]

Ive gotten only one answer from an economist about why perpetual growth is good (Jericho)

Anyone else?

Let me save you the trouble. If you're only taking the opinions of economists, then I guarantee that every single one of them will tell you that perpetual economic growth is both possible and a good thing.

End of thread.

 

[JohnRM]

Actually prior to about 1967 most of the gas consumed in UK houses e.g.
for heating and cooking was created from passing steam over coal:

C + H20 = CO + H2 (known as town gas)

As peak coal is further away than peak oil and natural gas,
this technology may come back into operation, in some places

But there won't be enough hydrogen to power mass car ownership.

Town gas is very dangerous and dirty.

What does this have to do with the fact that the only commercially viable way to extract hydrogen for fuel is by extracting it from natural gas?