Capital and the Perfect Society

[benjamindees]

Great. Now you're hugely more efficient at converting an ecosystem that provides ecosystem services into something else.

You've also created more centralization and risk.

[1713930610]

1713930610

[1713930610]

1713930610

[1713930610]

1713930610

[1713930610]

1713930610

[1713930610]

1713930610

[1713930610]

1713930610

[hashman]

Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.

Whoa whoa just a sec!  Trade is free?  Where?  What do you mean by "economic growth"? 
Producing more what for less what? 

[resources in] X [economic efficiency] = [resources out]

economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth.

We don't have completely free trade and never will as long as the state exists.

Thanks for your answer.  An interesting idea.  So then, a large increase in [resources in] is NOT economic growth.  There are some issues in the definition you give such as [efficiency of what task?]  Does it matter what you do to the dirt?  Or is the important part just that there are more unemployed people?  I don't have the answer, but I like your answer better than the standard definition of economic growth which as far as I can make out is "an increase in distribution of counterfeit monies". 

[FirstAscent]

Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.

Whoa whoa just a sec!  Trade is free?  Where?  What do you mean by "economic growth"? 
Producing more what for less what? 

[resources in] X [economic efficiency] = [resources out]

economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth.

We don't have completely free trade and never will as long as the state exists.

Thanks for your answer.  An interesting idea.  So then, a large increase in [resources in] is NOT economic growth.  There are some issues in the definition you give such as [efficiency of what task?]  Does it matter what you do to the dirt?  Or is the important part just that there are more unemployed people?  I don't have the answer, but I like your answer better than the standard definition of economic growth which as far as I can make out is "an increase in distribution of counterfeit monies". 

Ultimately, the only thing that will work is a Steady State Economy.

[myrkul]

Ultimately, the only thing that will work is a Steady State Economy.

In other words, kill as many people as possible.

[FirstAscent]

Ultimately, the only thing that will work is a Steady State Economy.

In other words, kill as many people as possible.

Do you understand what a Steady State Economy is, why it is proposed, what metrics are used to evaluate it, and why it is necessary?

As an example, how does a waste management company fit into a Steady State Economy?

[asdf]

Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.

Whoa whoa just a sec!  Trade is free?  Where?  What do you mean by "economic growth"? 
Producing more what for less what? 

[resources in] X [economic efficiency] = [resources out]

economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth.

We don't have completely free trade and never will as long as the state exists.

Thanks for your answer.  An interesting idea.  So then, a large increase in [resources in] is NOT economic growth.  There are some issues in the definition you give such as [efficiency of what task?]  Does it matter what you do to the dirt?  Or is the important part just that there are more unemployed people?  I don't have the answer, but I like your answer better than the standard definition of economic growth which as far as I can make out is "an increase in distribution of counterfeit monies". 

Well, economic growth can also be attributed to the manifestation of new resources, such as discovering a coal deposit or an increase in the population, but all else being equal growth is an increase in efficiency.

What you do with the dirt matters, but this will be determined by prices in the market. A business will produce [resources out] based on whatever configuration yields the most profit, considering those prices. This process maximises the total subjective value of all resources.

People who lose their jobs due to their work being made redundant will get jobs in other fields. The money saved from the new efficiencies will be freed up for other things. These newly unemployed people will have to provide these other things. Having 100 men dig a hole when 1 man + machine can do it is just a waste. There is no point being inefficient just for the sake of jobs. Remember, we want stuff, not work.

The end result is that quality of life goes up for all. And of course the environment is completely destroyed due to edge effects, because the environment has 0 value ;-)

[FirstAscent]

Well, economic growth can also be attributed to the manifestation of new resources, such as discovering a coal deposit or an increase in the population, but all else being equal growth is an increase in efficiency.

What you do with the dirt matters, but this will be determined by prices in the market. A business will produce [resources out] based on whatever configuration yields the most profit, considering those prices. This process maximises the total subjective value of all resources.

People who lose their jobs due to their work being made redundant will get jobs in other fields. The money saved from the new efficiencies will be freed up for other things. These newly unemployed people will have to provide these other things. Having 100 men dig a hole when 1 man + machine can do it is just a waste. There is no point being inefficient just for the sake of jobs. Remember, we want stuff, not work.

The end result is that quality of life goes up for all. And of course the environment is completely destroyed due to edge effects, because the environment has 0 value ;-)

I think you have an incomplete theory of modern economic theory.

Start thinking of the economy as an organism which inputs energy and raw materials to digest, and outputs products and waste. The digestive system is where production occurs. This organism (the economy) must coexist within its environment, and is dependent on its environment for survival.

There comes a point though (that time has already arrived) where continued growth of the organism's size must stop, else it will destroy its own host environment. A key point to recognize is whether the organism's waste is not being absorbed back into the environment effectively, and equally important, is if the organism's consumption moves beyond living off the interest produced by the environment, and is instead chewing into the environment's principle.

[myrkul]

There comes a point though (that time has already arrived) where continued growth of the organism's size must stop, else it will destroy its own host environment. A key point to recognize is whether the organism's waste is not being absorbed back into the environment effectively, and equally important, is if the organism's consumption moves beyond living off the interest produced by the environment, and is instead chewing into the environment's principle.

The key problem with your theory is that you assume that earth remaining humanity's only home is desirable. It is not. Remaining here ensures our extinction, sooner or later. It doesn't matter how pristine the environment is when the meteor smacks into the planet. You say I am not thinking long term. On the contrary, I am thinking in longer terms than you. This planet has a limited time span. We need to get off and set up shop in more places before that time runs out.

[FirstAscent]

There comes a point though (that time has already arrived) where continued growth of the organism's size must stop, else it will destroy its own host environment. A key point to recognize is whether the organism's waste is not being absorbed back into the environment effectively, and equally important, is if the organism's consumption moves beyond living off the interest produced by the environment, and is instead chewing into the environment's principle.

The key problem with your theory is that you assume that earth remaining humanity's only home is desirable. It is not. Remaining here ensures our extinction, sooner or later. It doesn't matter how pristine the environment is when the meteor smacks into the planet. You say I am not thinking long term. On the contrary, I am thinking in longer terms than you. This planet has a limited time span. We need to get off and set up shop in more places before that time runs out.

I'm not saying you're not thinking long term. Just the opposite - you're thinking too long term, which is moot if we don't address the short term.

99.9999 percent of the population is not going anywhere off this planet for a very long time. We'd be lucky if we get 1,000 people off this planet in the next 100 years. We need to address the next 100 and next 500 years as if nobody is going anywhere. Believe me, you're talking to someone who probably regularly follows the science behind solar system colonization and interstellar travel way more than you. I suggest you read Zubrin's Entering Space and every blog entry you can on centauri-dreams.org: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/

[myrkul]

There comes a point though (that time has already arrived) where continued growth of the organism's size must stop, else it will destroy its own host environment. A key point to recognize is whether the organism's waste is not being absorbed back into the environment effectively, and equally important, is if the organism's consumption moves beyond living off the interest produced by the environment, and is instead chewing into the environment's principle.

The key problem with your theory is that you assume that earth remaining humanity's only home is desirable. It is not. Remaining here ensures our extinction, sooner or later. It doesn't matter how pristine the environment is when the meteor smacks into the planet. You say I am not thinking long term. On the contrary, I am thinking in longer terms than you. This planet has a limited time span. We need to get off and set up shop in more places before that time runs out.

I'm not saying you're not thinking long term. Just the opposite - you're thinking too long term, which is moot if we don't address the short term.

99.9999 percent of the population is not going anywhere off this planet for a very long time. We'd be lucky if we get 1,000 people off this planet in the next 100 years. We need to address the next 100 and next 500 years as if nobody is going anywhere. Believe me, you're talking to someone who probably regularly follows the science behind solar system colonization and interstellar travel way more than you. I suggest you read Zubrin's Entering Space and every blog entry you can on centauri-dreams.org.

The problem is, a steady-state economy, by it's very nature, is a flatline. It doesn't have room for space colonization. Yeah, it's going to be hard. It's going to be expensive. It's going to take considerable energy, both human and environmental, to get those people out there. But it needs to be done, to preserve the species.

[FirstAscent]

The problem is, a steady-state economy, by it's very nature, is a flatline. It doesn't have room for space colonization.

You have no evidence of this. Ultimately, space exploration will harness the resources of the Moon, the Sun, the asteroids and the atmosphere of Jupiter. To jumpstart that will require mostly funding for research - not raw resources here on Earth.

[myrkul]

The problem is, a steady-state economy, by it's very nature, is a flatline. It doesn't have room for space colonization.

You have no evidence of this. Ultimately, space exploration will harness the resources of the Moon, the Sun, the asteroids and the atmosphere of Jupiter. To jumpstart that will require mostly funding for research - not raw resources here on Earth.

Funding for research. Where does that funding come from? Where does the material to make the launch vehicles come from? Yeah. The raw resources. Your complaint that "ever more technology applied to the harvest of those resources" is moot, because that "ever more technology" will include space exploration and exploitation of the belt's resources, when the price gets high enough to justify the cost.

[FirstAscent]

The problem is, a steady-state economy, by it's very nature, is a flatline. It doesn't have room for space colonization.

You have no evidence of this. Ultimately, space exploration will harness the resources of the Moon, the Sun, the asteroids and the atmosphere of Jupiter. To jumpstart that will require mostly funding for research - not raw resources here on Earth.

Funding for research. Where does that funding come from? Where does the material to make the launch vehicles come from? Yeah. The raw resources. Your complaint that "ever more technology applied to the harvest of those resources" is moot, because that "ever more technology" will include space exploration and exploitation of the belt's resources, when the price gets high enough to justify the cost.

Regarding funding - I would argue that efficient vehicles would eliminate the need for wars in the Middle East, which would free up massive amounts of money.

Regarding material for launch vehicles - that's silly and is not worth bringing up, as it's a drop in the bucket compared to other stuff we do.

[myrkul]

The problem is, a steady-state economy, by it's very nature, is a flatline. It doesn't have room for space colonization.

You have no evidence of this. Ultimately, space exploration will harness the resources of the Moon, the Sun, the asteroids and the atmosphere of Jupiter. To jumpstart that will require mostly funding for research - not raw resources here on Earth.

Funding for research. Where does that funding come from? Where does the material to make the launch vehicles come from? Yeah. The raw resources. Your complaint that "ever more technology applied to the harvest of those resources" is moot, because that "ever more technology" will include space exploration and exploitation of the belt's resources, when the price gets high enough to justify the cost.

Regarding funding - I would argue that efficient vehicles would eliminate the need for wars in the Middle East, which would free up massive amounts of money.

Regarding material for launch vehicles - that's silly and is not worth bringing up, as it's a drop in the bucket compared to other stuff we do.

There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."

[FirstAscent]

There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."

Maybe so. I'm not talking about a boost in mileage from 25mpg to 35mpg though.

[myrkul]

There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."

Maybe so. I'm not talking about a boost in mileage from 25mpg to 35mpg though.

Neither am I. I'm talking about removing the entire reason for war. (Hint: it's not "dependence on foreign oil")

[hashman]

Well, economic growth can also be attributed to the manifestation of new resources, such as discovering a coal deposit or an increase in the population, but all else being equal growth is an increase in efficiency.

What you do with the dirt matters, but this will be determined by prices in the market. A business will produce [resources out] based on whatever configuration yields the most profit, considering those prices. This process maximises the total subjective value of all resources.

People who lose their jobs due to their work being made redundant will get jobs in other fields. The money saved from the new efficiencies will be freed up for other things. These newly unemployed people will have to provide these other things. Having 100 men dig a hole when 1 man + machine can do it is just a waste. There is no point being inefficient just for the sake of jobs. Remember, we want stuff, not work.

The end result is that quality of life goes up for all. And of course the environment is completely destroyed due to edge effects, because the environment has 0 value ;-)

Well I like the idea that quality of life could come into play in an economic indicator, but this is tough to quantify.  Some indicators of quality of life such as people "not being depressed" or "not having cancer" correlate inversely with the counterfeit-money-distribution index (GDP).  There are also reasons to believe that your quality of life will be better if you get out and dig a ditch once in while rather than letting a machine do it every time.  And as for "we want stuff".. I am hopeful we can move past that.  Stuff is good for filling landfills, for example making giant piles of crushed automobiles seems to be an indicator to some of "economic growth".  But are giant floating island of garbage really what we're after?  For many an epiphany in their view of "stuff" comes from having a family member pass away and being in charge of "getting rid of the stuff".  Hoarding is an instinct that does not always serve us well.  As for the environment, we are the environment.  Quality of life is a nice phrase but I think survival is even more basic, (QOL requires L), and makes it more obvious that our extended bodies (the environment) are crucial.     



 

[hashman]

There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."

Maybe so. I'm not talking about a boost in mileage from 25mpg to 35mpg though.

Neither am I. I'm talking about removing the entire reason for war. (Hint: it's not "dependence on foreign oil")

I'll take a guess.  Mental illness? 
http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=TJoMMpFFBFs

[FirstAscent]

Well, economic growth can also be attributed to the manifestation of new resources, such as discovering a coal deposit or an increase in the population, but all else being equal growth is an increase in efficiency.

What you do with the dirt matters, but this will be determined by prices in the market. A business will produce [resources out] based on whatever configuration yields the most profit, considering those prices. This process maximises the total subjective value of all resources.

People who lose their jobs due to their work being made redundant will get jobs in other fields. The money saved from the new efficiencies will be freed up for other things. These newly unemployed people will have to provide these other things. Having 100 men dig a hole when 1 man + machine can do it is just a waste. There is no point being inefficient just for the sake of jobs. Remember, we want stuff, not work.

The end result is that quality of life goes up for all. And of course the environment is completely destroyed due to edge effects, because the environment has 0 value ;-)

Well I like the idea that quality of life could come into play in an economic indicator, but this is tough to quantify.  Some indicators of quality of life such as people "not being depressed" or "not having cancer" correlate inversely with the counterfeit-money-distribution index (GDP).  There are also reasons to believe that your quality of life will be better if you get out and dig a ditch once in while rather than letting a machine do it every time.  And as for "we want stuff".. I am hopeful we can move past that.  Stuff is good for filling landfills, for example making giant piles of crushed automobiles seems to be an indicator to some of "economic growth".  But are giant floating island of garbage really what we're after?  For many an epiphany in their view of "stuff" comes from having a family member pass away and being in charge of "getting rid of the stuff".  Hoarding is an instinct that does not always serve us well.  As for the environment, we are the environment.  Quality of life is a nice phrase but I think survival is even more basic, (QOL requires L), and makes it more obvious that our extended bodies (the environment) are crucial.  

Ecological Economics (Herman Daly: Steady State Economics) makes it a point, that when the economy is viewed as an organism that produces waste, it's important to subtract the costs of waste services, environmental cleanup, etc., rather than add them into the GDP: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

All those services paid for to clean up the Gulf Oil Spill? A lot of economic theories actually add those in to calculate GDP. Ridiculous.

[myrkul]

There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."

Maybe so. I'm not talking about a boost in mileage from 25mpg to 35mpg though.

Neither am I. I'm talking about removing the entire reason for war. (Hint: it's not "dependence on foreign oil")

I'll take a guess.  Mental illness? 
http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=TJoMMpFFBFs

Yeah, not far off.