Wealth is unlimited.

[IlbiStarz]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Sure, it's scarce but with enough improvement we can get by with a fraction of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale




Energy consumption has been increasing exponentially since the dawn of man.

This is due to miners. LOL.

[Aristotle]

Remember that just 600 years ago the world was flat and mankind could not grasp the fact that the world was a spherical object. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and relativity have only been adopted very recently in terms of mankind's total existence. Their validity is only as good as mankind's current understanding. 75 years ago we did not know that if you break an atom a tremendous amount of energy would be released imagine what we might know in another 75 years

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

[david4dev]

Can someone please define wealth? Then it would be more clear whether wealth is limited or not.

[myrkul]

Here's the relevant one:

Economics :
a.all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

Also: the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.

Personally, I think Atlas should have set the pipe down, on this one. Scarcity is the foundation of economics.

The second definition is unlimited, because "the state of being rich" is subjective.
The first one, not so much.

[jgraham]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

They say you can't move matter faster than the speed of light. However, you can move the space around an object as fast as you like.

    ^
    ^
    ^

There no coherent logic here. None.

It's actually a widely acclaimed possibility. We don't know shit about the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

In what sense is space "moved" and in what sense is that FTL travel?

Or is it....

I am ignorant.  I have an opinion but nothing behind it.

[westkybitcoins]

One of my first introductions to economics was a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer. Don't know that I'd call the guy the best economist ever, but the book was eye-opening, and helped spark an interest in the subject.

So when Atlas started this thread, I was pretty sure I knew where he was coming from. But I'm amazed at how quickly people started taking the title literally and began arguing the laws of thermodynamics. (Although I admit, Atlas stretching things to the point of discussing workarounds to the speed of light isn't helping much.)

I don't think it's difficult to see how humanity's wealth, reasonably defined*, can, given time, be increased with no limit that is relevant to us. The fact that only X pounds of a material exist on the planet doesn't condemn us to only be able to produce Y units of good from that material. Yes, things may happen that way, but a cap of Y units isn't a necessity. A simple shift in production methods may reduce waste and increase the number of units by 50%. A newly-engineered unit design may allow the units to be produced with a lighter structure (less material), doubling the number available. A future additive may even increase the unit's power for negligible cost and effort, so that one new unit can function as well as 4 old ones, for yet another effective increase in production, and a total effective production of 12Y units rather than Y. It is the intelligence and creativity of mankind that is the true limiting factor to humanity's wealth, far more than the material we see around us.

Those who disagree with this, and really think we can't continually increase wealth, somewhat confuse me. I have to wonder why those folks haven't simply jumped into politics to just grab as much power and wealth as they can for themselves and their descendants, and to loot and pillage as much as is socially acceptable. Because if the pie really is limited, then, pfft! Why not? If someone must be "the sucker", why let it be you?


*A reasonable definition would not be one that states wealth is simply a measure of the mass of physical material one owns. I would hope a little thought could show how one could have less of some substance, yet still be objectively wealthier than someone with more of it.

[david4dev]

So I think most of us are actually agreeing here without realising it  .

Wealth, if defined as a physical measure is limited because our natural resources are limited.

If it is defined more loosely as a definition of well being, it is not limited.

[Joise]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

This is stupid. We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that. What happens is when supply gets low, prices start to go up, and people use less of it. What happens when oil supply becomes low? Alternative energy sources start to become viable.

That's as wrong as saying that in a free market system, there can't be famine.

What's dangerous with energy in general and oil reserves in particular is that the time needed to adapt may be MUCH shorter than the life span of such things as houses, cars, motorways and so on. We are pretty much bounded to a fossile-driven economy with a base that could largely disappear within a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil

http://europe.theoildrum.com/

So, no.  The next time energy prices spike, you're not going to see people rolling up their sleeves to make anything more efficient.  You're going to see wars and people dying.  You're going to see a forced drop in consumption and living standards.  In fact you're probably going to see this pretty soon actually, since absolutely nothing has been done to "increase efficiency" since the last time energy prices spiked, except for a bunch of taxpayer theft and subsidized waste.

That's true also. We had an energy price spike in 2009. At the same time there was a collapse of the american mortgage market. This can surely attributed to the fact that the whole american economy is debt-driven.

But there is another fact: The higher prices for gasoline becomes, the less money have people to spend for paying mortgage and other goods. The further away the houses are from workplaces, the more pronounced is this effect.

Actually, prices for houses fell much more for the ones far away from the urban centres. One can surely say that the spike in energy prices has contributed to the financial crisis.

There's another point: Oil production requires immense amounts of capital and is bound to cheap credit.
Oil production did not rise in the last five years, in spite of rising global demand.

You can think of the current industrial system as a kind of organism. It lives from cheap oil, but it is also required to sustain oil production. It may be capable to adapt, but not quickly.

If you take a lion and the choke its common carotid artery, you don't get a lion adapted to less oxygen in the blood. You get a dead lion, assumed you survive the fight.

[ronwan]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

This is stupid. We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that. What happens is when supply gets low, prices start to go up, and people use less of it. What happens when oil supply becomes low? Alternative energy sources start to become viable.

Pretty much right on, I would recommend checking out the late economist Julian Simon on YouTube, he and others have found that the worlds is the opposite as you may think.  The more resources we use the more resources we get.  When Whale oil for lamps got scarce the switch to Kerosene opened of the door for gasoline, cars, plastics. Scarcity causes natural conservation and the search for alternatives, which in turn causes innovations and a rising standard of living.

[EconomicOracle]

I agree with every single post in this thread.

[david4dev]

I agree with every single post in this thread.

No you don't. 

[muad_dib]

Discussing such topics on the internet it is very difficult, as it requires a much higher understanding of economics than what the average internet user has.

Also a statement like: "Wealth is unlimited" is very bold. I would rephrase it as "Is wealth unlimited?"

This is a question which the average businessman doesn't bother with, as it seems pointless. In fact it is not originated by businessmen but by theologists. This question arise from different interpretation of the Bible.

Back in the XV century if you were a catholic, your answer to this question were NO. For you wealth is limited and you must take all actions to get in possession of it. Wealth which is most appreciated in the form of gold.

This ultimately lead to a good thing, the discovery of the Americas, and a bad thing, the spoilage of all the available gold, by any mean necessary. This destroyed the spanish superpower, as it driven inflation to the sky, ruining the economy.


Instead if you were a British Christian, your answer were YES. For you wealth is unlimited and we need to find new ways to extract it from existing goods. This ultimately lead to the industrial revolution, paid with the death of too many, but driving the human being in a new era.



Since Catholics lost the medieval economy war, now the word follow mostly the british christian line of thought, especially in the US.

[billyjoeallen]

Can someone please define wealth? Then it would be more clear whether wealth is limited or not.

Wealth is resources (natural or otherwise) in a form fit for human use.

[Fakeman]

Wealth is a pretty open-ended concept so sure it's unlimited in certain senses, but that doesn't mean for example that an unlimited number of people can live comfortably on earth at the same time. But yeah, there's no limit to how much (subjective) value you can add to a starting material with the right equipment and expertise. That value can be fleeting though, your $10,000 carbon fiber bicycle or $1M/kg wonder drug basically become worthless if burned in a fire. Or, especially in the absence of patent protections, the resale value of those things could be greatly diminished without their destruction if someone comes along and produces something that works just as well or better for 1/10 or 1/100 of the price you paid. Neither the bicycle nor the wonder drug is really intended to store long-term value though necessarily, so it should be no particular surprise if they don't.

[Confucius]

What about when we reach The Singularity? When technology advances at an exponentially infinite speed that it moves too fast for humans (without genetic modification) to comprehend.
Indeed, this would be a time where there would be more than enough abundance for every being to potentially be as wealthy as the next - No pie, unlimited wealth.

As stated, wealth is subjective.

Humans simply do not understand enough of the universe to conclude what is limited and what is not.
Imagine if you will, parallel universes. Or just about any other theorized possibilities, that work in our favor.  
The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know

Literally, entire novels could/have(?) been written by philosophers on the subject of wealth.

[Aristotle]

What about when we reach The Singularity?

See I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.  Well, only if you want to read a good sci-fi short-story.

We have just as much as a chance of reaching "The Singularity" as we have of reaching another Dark Age, IMO.  We don't know enough about parallel universes, extra dimensions, AI, etc. to know what is, and isn't possible yet.  I just prefer to take the most pessimistic stance, so I'm not disappointed

[whenhowwho]

hmm now we need a socrates and a plato. Sorry couldnt resist

[Fakeman]

The original topic is a bit dull because nobody really seems to disagree with it. It's like arguing that happiness is unlimited, sure it is but so what? How about this, a lot of economic activity is centered around the destruction of wealth. Cars are constantly damaged and destroyed in collisions (not to mention the associated medical costs), household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

[myrkul]

household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

Car accidents are just that: Accidents. If you know a way to prevent accidents before they happen, get to work, you'll be rich in no time.

As to the rest, I have household appliances I've had for years. Some, I've never had to replace. Also, have you considered how much more it might cost to create equipment that never breaks down? Electronics are becoming obsolete because technology is advancing. So, either you are advocating a reduction in progress, or that we should stop overengineering our computers so much. (so they break down sooner)

[Fakeman]

household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

Car accidents are just that: Accidents. If you know a way to prevent accidents before they happen, get to work, you'll be rich in no time.

As to the rest, I have household appliances I've had for years. Some, I've never had to replace. Also, have you considered how much more it might cost to create equipment that never breaks down? Electronics are becoming obsolete because technology is advancing. So, either you are advocating a reduction in progress, or that we should stop overengineering our computers so much. (so they break down sooner)

I don't believe I've argued for either of those things. I've only given some examples where certain economic activities appear to depend on the destruction of wealth to some degree. My 10 year old Thinkpad has a working screen, keyboard and power supply etc, why can't I just swap out the motherboard like I would with a desktop computer and continue to use the parts that work just fine? It's not that it would cost the manufacturer more to use a modular design (in fact the opposite is probably true), but if they did I wouldn't have to buy a whole computer to get something current. If you know of some exception to this among laptop manufacturers I'm all ears.

The keypad on your microwave breaks so you can either pay a ridiculously inflated price for a replacement part thanks to a proprietary design, or just buy a new microwave even though the other parts of your old one probably work fine. Oddly though your $5 TV remote never seems to have that problem in spite of frequent use and extremely low manufacturing costs. Some things really are just designed to fail and it's not always because making something durable would cost more.