Dear Candidate: What if growth was over?

[8537]

I agree that growth is over for us, in the USA, unless we reject globalization asap.

And even doing that would only open a small window before the forces of population explosion and resource depletion overcome us.

Wow...Who brought Paul Ehrlich to the party?

BTW, how did that bet with Julian Simon work out for you, professor?

Are you sure you want to use the Simon-Ehrlich debate as proof of your hypothesis here?

Have you seen the price of commodities in recent years?

It appears that Ehrlich's error was in timing, not in concept.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only way American economic growth will end is if we allow Progressives to continue to control it. You people need to be stopped.

We should and could have real growth of at least 3-4% annually and full employment without inflation.

1. Shut down and sell all the useless New Deal Programs and Departments (Farmers Home, Tennessee Valley, HUD, Rural Electrification) that need to check a calendar and see it's 2010

2. Reform SocSec, and Medicare/caid

3. Sell Fannie and Freddie it will be like when the USSR melted down and the oligarchs became billionaires, some Americans will pass Carlos Slim and Bill Gates but the liabilities won't be on the taxpayer anymore

4. Legalize hemp this will lower the cost of food, clothing, paper, and fuel

5. Eliminate the Department of Education. Have schools teach Entrepreneurship and Craftsmanship

6. Never allow Progressives anywhere near any government department, program of political office ever again

7. End income tax in favor of a VAT

8. Robust energy program from coal to nuclear

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This Progressive "America End of Days" stupidity has gone viral and is on every board I belong to all three of them (LOL)

 

[Oddball]

I agree that growth is over for us, in the USA, unless we reject globalization asap.

And even doing that would only open a small window before the forces of population explosion and resource depletion overcome us.

Wow...Who brought Paul Ehrlich to the party?

BTW, how did that bet with Julian Simon work out for you, professor?

Are you sure you want to use the Simon-Ehrlich debate as proof of your hypothesis here?

Have you seen the price of commodities in recent years?

It appears that Ehrlich's error was in timing, not in concept.

Sit around predicting, for centuries on end, that a meteor is going to hit the planet and you'll eventually be correct.

 

[blastoff]

below is a draft of a letter to an imaginary politician up for election later this year:

dear ______________

you are currently running for office as _____________________ in ____________________. As you know, we are living through economically tough times, and i hear a lot about how the economy can be brought back to stability and prosperity.

However, have you ever considered that economic growth might actually not return? That we might have to build a societal infrastructure based on less? nope, never entered my mind.

if so, what would be your plans to mitigate such a situation, to make sure that life can go on for your constituents in a future where "more each year" is no longer possible?

Or alternatively, if you don't have any plans - are you 100 percent certain that growth and prosperity will ever return, and if so, why is it that you see no risk worth looking at?
Yep, 100% certain. i see no risk because we've had hard economic times before, worse than we've been through this go-round, and we will once again work our way back.

pretend you're the candidate. How would you answer this question?

the oil drum: Campfire | dear candidate - what will you do if growth is over...?

follow-up questions:

1. Is there a reason why this kind of letter shouldn't be sent to real people who want our vote? none whatsoever.

2a. Would a candidate addressing these issues/questions stand any chance of winning? sure. Any better than the opposition? Depends on circumstances.

2b. If not, might such a candidate, even in a losing effort, influence the election issues and as a result positively impact transition efforts away from growth based economy?​

n/a...don't know how I screwed this up but the n/a is meant for 2b.​

 

[HUGGY]

This Progressive "America End of Days" stupidity has gone viral and is on every board I belong to all three of them (LOL)

Ya Frankie...this one thread has just "taken over" USMB.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This Progressive "America End of Days" stupidity has gone viral and is on every board I belong to all three of them (LOL)

Ya Frankie...this one thread has just "taken over" USMB.

I said I'm seeing the same nonsense on other boards, not that it's become the new "List"

 

[HUGGY]

This Progressive "America End of Days" stupidity has gone viral and is on every board I belong to all three of them (LOL)

Ya Frankie...this one thread has just "taken over" USMB.

I said I'm seeing the same nonsense on other boards, not that it's become the new "List"

I haven't posted on any other MB's for a couple of years. I'm loyal like that.

You on the other hand are a harlet and a tramp!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ya Frankie...this one thread has just "taken over" USMB.

I said I'm seeing the same nonsense on other boards, not that it's become the new "List"

I haven't posted on any other MB's for a couple of years. I'm loyal like that.

You on the other hand are a harlet and a tramp!

Well, it's because the Koch Brothers and Richard Scaife each pay me $199.95/per post.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The only way American economic growth will end is if we allow Progressives to continue to control it. You people need to be stopped.

Crusader, indeed.

You have no idea what you're blathering about. Growth is based on natural resources, and the ability they provide to do work. It has ZERO to do with polar opposite political ideology.

Could you be more retarded? Don't answer that, your next post will be along any moment now.

So typical of you clowns to isolate and identify some fictional "enemy" for all that ails America, while ignoring and apologizing for corporate grease skidding and deregulation at every turn -- you know, the REAL culprits dooming America in an age of dwindling energy and exploding population.

Nuclear has severe uranium limitations. Coal is also limited, unless you consider abundant (but useless) lignate in the reserve total, as do the liars who promote vast coal totals. There isn't enough good coal left, and even the good stuff is highly toxic, and won't maintain growth for societies dependent on 7% expansion. Wake up.

 

[lizzie]

OK, now that those two hijacks - one ignorant, the other irrelevant - have come and gone with a whimper, perhaps a serious response please?

Thanks so much.

Again, why couldn't this question be asked of a potential candidate? Especially considering Bernanke just went on national TV a few weeks ago and admitted that expected GDP growth has slowed to a crawl with no end it sight.

There's no reason it couldn't be asked- there's also no reason to expect an honest answer. If growth is no longer possible (which I don't believe to be the case), then alot of people are going to have to nut up and start accepting responsibility for their own lives.

 

[8537]

Wow...Who brought Paul Ehrlich to the party?

BTW, how did that bet with Julian Simon work out for you, professor?

Are you sure you want to use the Simon-Ehrlich debate as proof of your hypothesis here?

Have you seen the price of commodities in recent years?

It appears that Ehrlich's error was in timing, not in concept.

Sit around predicting, for centuries on end, that a meteor is going to hit the planet and you'll eventually be correct.

I'm not sure how that relates to Simon-Ehrlich. Oh wait...it doesn't! I'm going to assume you haven't reviewed the predicted outcomes in a while. Simon didn't claim it was going to take longer, he claimed it wouldn't happen, period.

 

[boedicca]

The only way American economic growth will end is if we allow Progressives to continue to control it. You people need to be stopped.

Crusader, indeed.

You have no idea what you're blathering about. Growth is based on natural resources, and the ability they provide to do work. It has ZERO to do with polar opposite political ideology.

Could you be more retarded? Don't answer that, your next post will be along any moment now.

So typical of you clowns to isolate and identify some fictional "enemy" for all that ails America, while ignoring and apologizing for corporate grease skidding and deregulation at every turn -- you know, the REAL culprits dooming America in an age of dwindling energy and exploding population.

Nuclear has severe uranium limitations. Coal is also limited, unless you consider abundant (but useless) lignate in the reserve total, as do the liars who promote vast coal totals. There isn't enough good coal left, and even the good stuff is highly toxic, and won't maintain growth for societies dependent on 7% expansion. Wake up.

God, you are an idiot.

Natural resources are just so much minerals, dirt, and water without creative minds to invent ways to use them. Growth is the product of intellect.

 

[8537]

The only way American economic growth will end is if we allow Progressives to continue to control it. You people need to be stopped.

Crusader, indeed.

You have no idea what you're blathering about. Growth is based on natural resources, and the ability they provide to do work. It has ZERO to do with polar opposite political ideology.

Could you be more retarded? Don't answer that, your next post will be along any moment now.

So typical of you clowns to isolate and identify some fictional "enemy" for all that ails America, while ignoring and apologizing for corporate grease skidding and deregulation at every turn -- you know, the REAL culprits dooming America in an age of dwindling energy and exploding population.

Nuclear has severe uranium limitations. Coal is also limited, unless you consider abundant (but useless) lignate in the reserve total, as do the liars who promote vast coal totals. There isn't enough good coal left, and even the good stuff is highly toxic, and won't maintain growth for societies dependent on 7% expansion. Wake up.

God, you are an idiot.

Natural resources are just so much minerals, dirt, and water without creative minds to invent ways to use them. Growth is the product of intellect.

Intellect alone can't create growth. growth requires physical inputs including energy, and energy is derived only from the low-entropy resources that become less useful high-entropy resources upon use. There is a finite amount of low-entropy energy reserve in the world.

 

[boedicca]

Why limit humanity to this one planet?

 

[8537]

Why limit humanity to this one planet?

Because we are limited to this one planet for the foreseeable future. In 50 years of space exploration we've brought back a couple rocks from the moon and dangled some folks just above the atmosphere for a couple months. The idea that we are going to extract resources from another planet and find a way to transport those resources here with a net energy gain is still in the realm of science fiction.

 

[Oddball]

Are you sure you want to use the Simon-Ehrlich debate as proof of your hypothesis here?

Have you seen the price of commodities in recent years?

It appears that Ehrlich's error was in timing, not in concept.

Sit around predicting, for centuries on end, that a meteor is going to hit the planet and you'll eventually be correct.

I'm not sure how that relates to Simon-Ehrlich. Oh wait...it doesn't! I'm going to assume you haven't reviewed the predicted outcomes in a while. Simon didn't claim it was going to take longer, he claimed it wouldn't happen, period.

It relates in that the dour, despondent prophets of doom, which also includes Keynesian witch doctors, will always find a way to be right.

Something good happens? Well, you just wait...Things will get worse.

Something bad happens? SEE?!?!??...WE TOLDJASO!

"Stimulated" economy eventually comes around? SEE?!?!?...That's proof that it worked!

"Stimulated" economy doesn't come around?...Well, that's just because we didn't do enough soon enough.

In the world of logic and sensory evidence, where doomsayers and tinkering social engineers refuse to live, we call this the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[8537]

Sit around predicting, for centuries on end, that a meteor is going to hit the planet and you'll eventually be correct.

I'm not sure how that relates to Simon-Ehrlich. Oh wait...it doesn't! I'm going to assume you haven't reviewed the predicted outcomes in a while. Simon didn't claim it was going to take longer, he claimed it wouldn't happen, period.

It relates in that the dour, despondent prophets of doom, which also includes Keynesian witch doctors, will always find a way to be right.

Something good happens? Well, you just wait...Things will get worse.

Something bad happens? SEE?!?!??...WE TOLDJASO!

"Stimulated" economy eventually comes around? SEE?!?!?...That's proof that it worked!

"Stimulated" economy doesn't come around?...Well, that's just because we didn't do enough soon enough.

In the world of logic and sensory evidence, where doomsayers and tinkering social engineers refuse to live, we call this the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

In other words, you can't defend your Simon-Ehrlich claim? of course you can't. it was wrong.

So you move once again to pointless sophistry. In the case of Ehrlich, he WAS the one who predicted something "bad" would happen. And he was right. The eternal-glory-of-my-own-intellect proved wrong.

 

[Oddball]

In other words, the bet had a specific time frame.

Sitting back and saying "yeah, well my outcome about at a later date" (which is arguable at best), constitutes what we commonly refer to as "moving the goalposts".

Bottom line: Ehrlich -along with Malthus, Galbraith and numerous other prophets of doom- were and continue to be wrong.

Now, get back to your street corner and your "THE END IS NIGH" sammich board.

 

[8537]

In other words, the bet had a specific time frame.

But the economic theory behind Simon's claim, and Simon's own words, expressed no timeframe.

Bottom line: Ehrlich -along with Malthus, Galbraith and numerous other prophets of doom- were and continue to be wrong.

Tell us about Galbraith's doom scenario. I remember you dancing on his grave, but I also recall that you hadn't read Galbraith.

FYI: Galbraith was not a doomsdayer. In fact, he was quite certain of very strong ongoing economic growth. His "complaint," as it is, was simply that the growth would be controlled by a powerful comingling of government and large corporations.

By the way, he was right.