Limits to growth

Posted by Nietzsche 11 years, 6 months ago to Economics
12 comments | Share | Flag

This article by economist Robert Gordon is an expansion of a premise that I have posited for a long time. The triggers for spurts of productivity and economic growth are not necessarily repeatable. My corollary is that, neither are these triggers predictable.
SOURCE URL: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/imagine-economic-ice-age-united-142108302.html;_ylt=An7mCa5K318mLDFsKg.YsEh5uodG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ3aDlobThxBG1pdANUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGlzdCAgTm8gQ29sbGVjdGlvbgRwa2cDN2Q0N2U1MTMtMjg0YS0zNThkLWI4MTItZDBhNTBmYzJiYWViBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzgzYTFjM2EwLWYzNzctMTFlMS1hYWZmLTIyNjczYzZiNTMxZg--;_ylg=X3oDMTFlamZvM2ZlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DR_BRETT 11 years, 6 months ago
    There is no such thing as a "limit" upon growth, but there is murder .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 years, 6 months ago
      The law of diminishing returns is a fundamental economic principle which applies to any stimulus to productivity and growth. Gordon points out several instances where productivity gains are likely near their limit. When he says, "The rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history..." he poses an interesting premise.

      Though certainly individuals with inventiveness and creativity may still be productive and prosper, as they do now, what about the economy as a whole? Has it entered a productivity "Ice Age"?

      The meaning of your comment and the allusion to murder eludes me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 11 years, 6 months ago
        The economy as a whole is in its crises today because so few individuals are sharing their inventiveness and creativity. Part of this problem, a big part of this problem, stems from the massive regulation. Naturally there will be some who read what I just wrote and decry that that it was the "deregulation" that led us into this crises - although perhaps not in this site where seemingly there are mostly like minded thinkers - but "deregulation" is not unregulated. There are too many hoops for the individual to jump through in order to share their creativity and inventiveness and the few who do are compelled to incorporate which is a clear surrender of sovereignty and acquiescence to regulation. A corporation is a chartered entity that exists by the good graces of the state and as such is inherently regulated.

        The economy will continue to suffer the consequences of out of control regulatory agencies who have no regard for the simple maxims of business. The bureaucrat has no concept of minimizing cost because they maximize their income by the point of a gun. They have no concept of supply and demand and live in a fantasy world where any demand can be met by pointing their guns at someone else. The bureaucrat has no concept of cost controls but believe they can dictate price controls. Price controls are not cost controls.

        When I say that government is a large part of the problem I should clarify that all people get the government they deserve and regardless of what sort of government is in place that government exists because the people allow it too, and so ultimately it is we the people who are the complete problem, largely because we have the government we deserve and less so because too many of us have grown comfortable with ignorance and apathy.

        Of course, these arguments are made to address your "economy as a whole" question which presumably posits that there can only be one economy and all actions are either a cause or effect of that economy.

        The notion of Galt's Gulch, however, posits otherwise. The community of Galt's Gulch gave up on worrying about "the economy as a whole" and only worried about their economy and as such became cause over the "economy as a whole" and in doing so "stopped the motor of the world".

        The "economy as a whole" that I am assuming you speak of has become a global monstrosity that is too easy to topple. While a Gulch economy can opt to contract with others from other nations, a Gulch economy has no concern for the global economy, or a national economy, or state economy and only worries about the local economy and the even exchange between the members of this locality.

        You speak to the Law of Diminishing Returns but I would point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and while that law is in regards to chemical reactions of heat systems, its principle is more universal and all closed systems demonstrably tend towards entropy. Open systems fare better.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 11 years, 6 months ago
          To follow your physics metaphor, new technologies such as the industrial revolution, the application of electricity and finally the networked computer age created enormous one-time improvements that simply can't be repeated and introduced new energy into the system, not only keeping in running, but making it run more efficiently than ever before.

          The concept of government's role in a society is a more complicated. A fictional Galt's Gulch aside, the founders understood why government is necessary: "...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...".

          A government, like any organism, will try to grow and increase its influence. Only the diligence of its citizenry can stop that from happening. I agree with you that government has become a problem. We have allowed the government to meddle, in the name of the common good, into far too many areas and stifle productivity. This is something we need to strive to reverse.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 11 years, 6 months ago
            To be clear, I was not speaking metaphorically in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I was offering a hypothesis based upon observation. It appears as if the principle of all closed systems tending towards entropy applies to more than just the chemical reactions of heat systems. I am speaking in abstractions and can offer no differentials but as a hypothesis it certainly does appear that a closed market system will, and there are plenty of examples where it has, become entropic.

            Another word for entropy is chaos and our current economic state seems to be rapidly headed towards this chaos.

            In terms of government, I am not clear why we would have to set Galt's Gulch aside. That community formed a more perfect union, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the common defense, promoting the general welfare of that community and securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

            If we are to be diligent in restraining the natural tendency of government to aggregate power, I would suggest that we be clear on the words we chose. Legally speaking a "citizen" is a recognized subject of a state, commonwealth whether they are native or naturalized. Having a government does not require being subject to that government and at this point I should probably point out that you left out the beginning and the end of the Preamble for the Constitution for the United States of America. That Preamble begins "We the People" and it ends "do ordain and establish this Constitution..." This is very important context. We the People are not subject to that federal government, that federal government is subject to We the People.

            Prior to the most unfortunate 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as a national citizen and even with the 14th Amendment, no person is obligated to take up that invitation to be a citizen.

            People do not need a government to obey laws. People need government to find remedy in the event of a disparagement or denial of a right, and to a lesser degree to provide arbitration to settle the petty differences of individuals.

            The citizen, more times than not, seeks "civil rights" (legal rights) but the sovereign individual need not seek any right as they understand they have them always and the worst that can happen to them is that those rights will be trampled upon and/or denied. The worst that can happen to the "citizen" is that their rights will be taken away and since they are, after all, granted legal rights, they can be legally taken away.

            We the People must do our due diligence in restraining the ugly beast of out of control government and can not reasonably rely on citizens to join us.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 11 years, 6 months ago
              I would agree with much of what you say, but I would suggest that a Galt's Gulch could not long endure in our modern world. When you say that people do not need a government to obey laws, I cannot agree.

              If history teaches us anything, we see that in the real world there are nation states, standing armies and conflicting interests. Galt's Gulch may care nothing about the world, but if you have no army and a hostile neighbor does, you may end up like Holland during WW II. The armies required for common defense typically need to be funded by greater resources than any individual can muster. Ergo some form of government and taxation is necessary, but I agree that this is a slippery slope. While disillusioned by our present government, I still have faith in the ballot over the bullet and I do rely on responsible citizenry joining us to eventually change our course.

              With regards to the 14th Amendment, there was both national and state citizenship before that Amendment. The 14th Amendment was a "Reconstruction Amendment" resulting from the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case in 1856. Congress sought not to grant, but to clearly define who is entitled to citizenship to clarify the status of Blacks and Indians as covered in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, so that the Supreme Court could not declare the act unconstitutional.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 11 years, 6 months ago
                It is demonstrably so that governments cannot compel people to obey laws, if they could there would be no need for law enforcement, courts and conviction.

                I do not think that Galt's Gulch cared nothing about the world, they simply cared nothing about economies outside of their own. Having faith in the ballot over the bullet paves the way for the need for a bullet. Voting is not what makes humanity free. It is the unalienable rights of humanity that make them free and no government gave humanity these rights. Responsible citizenry would be those who acquiesce to the government they are subject to. Responsible individuals understand that it is government that is subject to them.

                You are mistaken regarding national citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment. The very first sentence of that Amendment reads:

                "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

                If you were correct that sentence would not be necessary in the 14th Amendment. There are many erroneous assumptions made about the 14th Amendment and the most egregious is the notion that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott ruling. However a careful reading of the Dred Scott ruling reveals that the 14th Amendment is appallingly harmonious with the Dred Scott ruling, and did not in anyway "overturn" that ruling. This erroneous assumption as led to yet another erroneous assumption that Supreme Court Rulings can be overturned by Amendment. But since that Court has the power of judicial review they can strike down any such Amendment.

                The serious problem with the 14th Amendment lies in its harmony with Dred Scott which held that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Scott's case. This disingenuousness by that Court has now encouraged people to believe that the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens of the United States.

                All of this is a problem with individuals more than government. Any individual that understands the mistakes of fact and misinterpretation of law stand a far better chance of protecting their own rights than the ignorant do.

                Congress wrote the 14th Amendment to be harmonious with Dred Scott so it evaded the risk of being overturned. If an act of legislation is unconstitutional there are no magic tricks Congress can employ to prevent the SCOTUS from striking it down as unconstitutional.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 11 years, 6 months ago
                  I disagree, but grant you the last word.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 11 years, 6 months ago
                    Respectfully, I need no grant of any words from anyone other than myself. It is revealing you thought it was in your purview to grant me anything at all and helps to explain your defense of citizenship versus a sovereign individual.

                    "Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."

                    ~Racism; Virtue of Selfishness~

                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo