Can economies grow ad infinitum?

[Daniela_grefi]

Can economies grow ad infinitum?
 Is it realistic to accept the premise that national economies should continue growing forever?

If not, then is it right that growth appears to be the primary measure by which we judge an economy's health?

[BitcoinMagician]

I don't know much, about economics... but it seems to me that economic growth is basically better use of resources per capita. I think that once we are able to use the resources outside of our own planet, assuming our population growth rate is low, we can continue economic growth into ridiculously high levels of prosperity. Not infinitely, the universe mind-bogglingly large, but even it has a limited amount of resources, and they cannot be exploited forever, entropy makes sure of that.

I'm very optimistic of what will be humanity's accomplishments in the 21st century. We're already living in a fantasy land of wellbeing that our ancestors from 300 years ago only dared to dream about. We're going to be doing much better in 300 years.

[Amph]

no it cannot, and this crisis it the best demostration, we reached the point where debts cannot repay themselves

their whole printing mania is coming to an end, but banks know that by reducing cost and fees on trasaction with blockchain technology they can keep printing for some time

[zenitzz]

I would say that economies cannot consume the Earth's resources at the same rate, or at least should manage these more carefully

[maku]

I think it is one of the primary laws of the economy. I don't think endless economic growth is possible but people are acting like it is.

Growth that it is not possible to sustain (make continue) without causing economic problems economic growth that it is not possible to sustain without causing environmental problems.

Source: Longman Business English Dictionary

[spazzdla]

no it cannot, and this crisis it the best demostration, we reached the point where debts cannot repay themselves

their whole printing mania is coming to an end, but banks know that by reducing cost and fees on trasaction with blockchain technology they can keep printing for some time

This game could go on for a very long time.. the average person is a complete and utter fucking moron.. like I can't even describe how fucking stupid the average person is.

[neurotypical]

no it cannot, and this crisis it the best demostration, we reached the point where debts cannot repay themselves

their whole printing mania is coming to an end, but banks know that by reducing cost and fees on trasaction with blockchain technology they can keep printing for some time

Well, that is because the very fundamentals that are run under this economy are false ones. What if the underlying mechanism to run an economy is Bitcoin? There we wouldn't have fictional QE and whatnot.
Of course nothing grows forever, i dont think it's physically possible, but we could be having a lot more continuous progress without fictional crashes every X years if the entire world economy ran under BTC.

[funkenstein]

Can economies grow ad infinitum?
 Is it realistic to accept the premise that national economies should continue growing forever?

If not, then is it right that growth appears to be the primary measure by which we judge an economy's health?

Of course they can.  All it takes is for your unit of measurement to shrink ad infinitum. 

[jeannemadrigal2]

no it cannot, and this crisis it the best demostration, we reached the point where debts cannot repay themselves

their whole printing mania is coming to an end, but banks know that by reducing cost and fees on trasaction with blockchain technology they can keep printing for some time

This game could go on for a very long time.. the average person is a complete and utter fucking moron.. like I can't even describe how fucking stupid the average person is.

Yes, I agree, and it is very frustrating.  If I try and talk about anything, like really anything, be it fractional reserve banking, the government getting cornholed by goldman sachs, or even something simple like the Greenspan put, then people look at me like I am telling them I was abducted by aliens last night.

I am on the fence.  I don't know if people are really so stupid, or if they are willfully staying in their suburban bliss so they dont have to think about such problems.  Maybe they don't believe anything unless it is on fix news or msnbc or whatever. 

As to the question, there are different factors.  I read a good argument once that the economic growth is limited by the price of gasoline, and that makes sense to me.  But also the shenanigans with interest rates and printing money, QE, etc, that stuff is increasing the money supply.  The end result is an asset bubble (to put it simple) that will pop sooner or later.  Right now this is a great benefit to anyone holding assets (mostly the 1%, who have greatly increased their share of the wealth in the last decades).  But those people will also be hurt the worst when it pops.  The thing that really pisses me off is that your average person such as myself, who only wants to go to work and earn a reasonable living, is screwed the worst.  It is like Chris Rock said, if you wife wants a divorce and gets half, and you have a million dollars, you will be alright.  If she wants half and you only make 30k a year you might have to shoot the bitch.  Its not that I hate the rich or anything, but I don't like the way things have gone.  Look at how much the average ceo made 30 years ago compared to the average person, and look now.  Look at how much the banks are making, but all they do is screw up our economy over and over.  Why do we let them make this kind of money?

[bojan92]

Yes the economies can grow, but the problem is that the products manufactured in one country have to be sold. If there is another product similar to the first one but much more cheaper everyone will buy that. So good products, fair price, nice quality, open markets and spending the government money for good thing would be the reasons for a good economy

[dothebeats]

-snip-
Why do we let them make this kind of money?

We don't actually let them make this kind of money, but rather we are helping them to make this kind of money by supporting them in their objectives. Also, we are controlled by them (print more and more money for the plebeians, they think it's good lol) and there is not much we can do about it, unless we can find a way to avoid their control (bitcoin, maybe?).

[Miracal]

-snip-
Why do we let them make this kind of money?

We don't actually let them make this kind of money, but rather we are helping them to make this kind of money by supporting them in their objectives. Also, we are controlled by them (print more and more money for the plebeians, they think it's good lol) and there is not much we can do about it, unless we can find a way to avoid their control (bitcoin, maybe?).

You actually are letting them make money by helping and supporting them, the same way we all are. Bitcoin helps people see things how they are, and once you start using bitcoin often, you will notice that you have the complete ability to eliminate this control and power over us of these people with crypto-currency, all it needs is support form the masses

[spazzdla]

no it cannot, and this crisis it the best demostration, we reached the point where debts cannot repay themselves

their whole printing mania is coming to an end, but banks know that by reducing cost and fees on trasaction with blockchain technology they can keep printing for some time

This game could go on for a very long time.. the average person is a complete and utter fucking moron.. like I can't even describe how fucking stupid the average person is.

Yes, I agree, and it is very frustrating.  If I try and talk about anything, like really anything, be it fractional reserve banking, the government getting cornholed by goldman sachs, or even something simple like the Greenspan put, then people look at me like I am telling them I was abducted by aliens last night.

I am on the fence.  I don't know if people are really so stupid, or if they are willfully staying in their suburban bliss so they dont have to think about such problems.  Maybe they don't believe anything unless it is on fix news or msnbc or whatever. 

As to the question, there are different factors.  I read a good argument once that the economic growth is limited by the price of gasoline, and that makes sense to me.  But also the shenanigans with interest rates and printing money, QE, etc, that stuff is increasing the money supply.  The end result is an asset bubble (to put it simple) that will pop sooner or later.  Right now this is a great benefit to anyone holding assets (mostly the 1%, who have greatly increased their share of the wealth in the last decades).  But those people will also be hurt the worst when it pops.  The thing that really pisses me off is that your average person such as myself, who only wants to go to work and earn a reasonable living, is screwed the worst.  It is like Chris Rock said, if you wife wants a divorce and gets half, and you have a million dollars, you will be alright.  If she wants half and you only make 30k a year you might have to shoot the bitch.  Its not that I hate the rich or anything, but I don't like the way things have gone.  Look at how much the average ceo made 30 years ago compared to the average person, and look now.  Look at how much the banks are making, but all they do is screw up our economy over and over.  Why do we let them make this kind of money?

I think most are just that stupid.  Way to lazy to look into anything, "it works just fine see I can use this $20 right here to buy some beer tomorrow you're a nut bag"...

Youtube "by the dip" It's rather hilarious and quite sad.

The stockmarket is the worst thing on this planet.. It allows people with money to hide how much stock they own and who they are shorting.... The ability to destroy or pump up companies with that power is insane.. Now you have like 6-20 families that can threaten a company or they'll short them into oblivion..   It's very easy to have those same families have over 50% share in every single stock on the planet.

[johnyj]

Productivity can rise forever, but the resource allocation is always 100%, with less and less people owning more and more. So if you define the economy growth as people owning more and more resources, that is definitely a no, people just get more and more efficient using exiting resources, although their share of resources are shrinking for most of them: Those born after world war II can easily own a large house, but those born after 2000 are most likely to work their life to get their small apartment in cities

The only one who is getting more and more resources are banks, they just print money and purchase assets

[countryfree]

I hope the economy will keep on growing as long as the population does. There shall be 9 billions people on Earth at the end of the century, if the economy doesn't grow at the same rate, we will all get poorer. Well, a few smart guys will manage to get richer, but 99% will get poorer. No fun.

[futureofbitcoin]

Productivity can rise forever, but the resource allocation is always 100%, with less and less people owning more and more. So if you define the economy growth as people owning more and more resources, that is definitely a no, people just get more and more efficient using exiting resources, although their share of resources are shrinking for most of them: Those born after world war II can easily own a large house, but those born after 2000 are most likely to work their life to get their small apartment in cities

The only one who is getting more and more resources are banks, they just print money and purchase assets

a lot of them can probably still get large homes in the right places. They just want to be in expensive, large cities.

economics can grow as long as there are more resources. But there is probably a theoretical maximum, unless we discover something that defies our current understanding of physics in the future.

[johnyj]

Productivity can rise forever, but the resource allocation is always 100%, with less and less people owning more and more. So if you define the economy growth as people owning more and more resources, that is definitely a no, people just get more and more efficient using exiting resources, although their share of resources are shrinking for most of them: Those born after world war II can easily own a large house, but those born after 2000 are most likely to work their life to get their small apartment in cities

The only one who is getting more and more resources are banks, they just print money and purchase assets

a lot of them can probably still get large homes in the right places. They just want to be in expensive, large cities.

economics can grow as long as there are more resources. But there is probably a theoretical maximum, unless we discover something that defies our current understanding of physics in the future.

They can get large homes in rural places that no one used to live, but all the convenient places in modern cities are occupied

Human does not create resources, they just consume it, the early stage of the resource occupation is critical. US purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, and that is one apartment building you can purchase in large city today

[n2004al]

Can economies grow ad infinitum?
 Is it realistic to accept the premise that national economies should continue growing forever?

If not, then is it right that growth appears to be the primary measure by which we judge an economy's health?

Theoretically yes. If all factors which determine an economy goes well there has no reasons that the economy cannot be grow. Practically no. You can learn everything about why here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

About the last question if it is right that growth appears to be the primary measure by which we judge an economy's health I think that the answer is no. Because the growth may be one year or two or even more but if the economy is structured bad the next year it will not more growth. For sure. Primary indicator in the economy's health of one country is the structure of its economy. If this structure is the needed one in that phase of development of one country it will be with much probability that the growth be long. It will be not more growth if the changes in the structure of society need changes in the structure of economy. If made those the growth will continue again; if not, there is will be not more growth until that changes happen.

[trollercoaster]

No, there's always opposite forces at work, any attempt to control it is marxism

[V for Varoufakis]

Yes, because the needs of the people are for ever.