
Why Economic Growth Will Fall - kosmos1337
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/why-economic-growth-will-fall/
======
skywhopper
I agree that it's impossible for the rates of economic growth and lifestyle
improvements we saw since the late 1800s to continue indefinitely, but the key
to growth is investment. And from the late-1800s till the mid-1900s, there
were huge government investments made in building new and innovative
infrastructure in the US--railroads, the phone network, state universities and
K-12 public education, electricity generation and distribution, highways,
airports. Those investments in common infrastructure allowed private
investment to piggyback and provide the enormous success the US economy has
had in the time detailed.

But today, we've forgotten the formula. Education funding is falling, basic
maintenance isn't being performed on much of the infrastructure, and we aren't
investing enough in the new things that can provide growth for the next
hundred years. High-speed and light rail could help address the limits of
airport and highway capacity, and provide better mobility in and between
cities. Investing in clean electricity generation, a national power network,
and improved battery technology could revolutionize how our homes and cars get
their power. Very-low cost higher education was a thing in mid-20th-century
America--it was possible to attend your in-state university for a few thousand
bucks in today's dollars. What happened? As long as we pretend these things
are too expensive to invest in, then we're sure to enter a long slow decline.

~~~
paganel
> What happened? As long as we pretend these things are too expensive to
> invest in, then we're sure to enter a long slow decline.

I'll go on the Marxist side of things and say that "quantitative differences
have turned out into qualitative ones". What I want to say is that scale
matters. Regarding investment in higher-education, it was relatively ok and
feasible to give Government subsidies for all the students attending
university when only 1%-2% of the students finishing high-school were going to
university (I think that happened up until the mid-50s, but maybe I'm wrong),
but once you've got 30-50% of the students finishing high-school going to
university then the money just isn't there anymore.

And to add to that, it always baffled me how Malthus's name has always had
such a bad reputation. The economics for handling a planet inhabited by 1.5
billion people in the late 1800s (we only reached 2 billion people in 1927)
are totally different from the economics of a planet inhabited by 7+ billion
people, going on 10. Our resources are finite, no matter how much we try to
hide it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _And to add to that, it always baffled me how Malthus 's name has always had
> such a bad reputation. The economics for handling a planet inhabited by 1.5
> billion people in the late 1800s (we only reached 2 billion people in 1927)
> are totally different from the economics of a planet inhabited by 7+ billion
> people, going on 10. Our resources are finite, no matter how much we try to
> hide it._

I still don't get how Malthus's name got that bad rep in the first place. As
for the difference between the late 1800s and now, it's smaller that one may
think. Back then people were hitting the ceiling of Earth's capability to feed
people. We got through that, and grew beyond 2 billion people, thanks to a
series of scientific and technological flukes, like Haber–Bosch process[0]. We
were lucky then, this doesn't imply we'll be lucky this time.

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process)

~~~
harshreality
The implication is that some sort of population control _might_ be necessary,
if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves.
Population control is antithetical to western individualistic values, so
people reject the premise because one of the potential policy consequences
(population control) causes an emotional melt-down. If desire to believe in an
abstract principle is strong enough, facts will be rejected.

~~~
jerf
"if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves."

Since at the moment, the evidence strongly suggests that they are, "population
control" measures sound even more evil to me than they did before.

The problem is that when you go to concretize the abstract question, you end
up with the question " _Who_ gets the power to decide who lives and dies?" (or
reproduces) and one need not study history for very long to become _very
nervous_ about the possible answers. Those of you who casually assume you'd be
on the "live" side are unjustified in your confidence.

~~~
GFischer
Well, China did have such a policy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
child_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)

~~~
hx87
It has been of questionable utility since the decline in fertility began
before the policy was implemented. In fact, the policy was conceived to
counteract Mao's pro-natalist policy where a large(r) population was supposed
to be a hedge against nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

------
mark_l_watson
Our economy depends on growth, and I think this will cause lots of problems.

I saw a quote by a US congressman blaming young people today for our financial
problems because many of them are unwilling to put themselves into debt for
homes, cars, etc. An outrageous statement, blaming people for doing what they
believe to be in their own self interest.

If the value of production mostly stayed with the people and local businesses
then I can imagine our society thriving with minimal growth.

In my opinion, the requirement for growth to keep the financial sector going
is like a cancer. Wall Street, central banks, etc. grow in power and consume
more of the productive segments of society like a cancer.

~~~
tome
Why and how does our economy depend on growth? I've head this claimed a lot
but never understood it.

~~~
allendoerfer
You buy a stock, create a company, build a house, because you expect it to
increase in value and be a worthwhile investment. If growth stops it will be
increasingly hard to do this, because all stocks that are still increasing in
value will be bought up, until they cannot anymore. So you keep your money.
Deflation. System collapse.

~~~
tome
OK, that's a rough argument that needs fleshing out. Has the rigorous argument
actually been made and is widely accepted by economists or is this just a meme
that's accepted and repeated without much basis?

~~~
riskneural
Adam Smith makes the argument well in A Wealth of Nations. Essentially, the
only reason to invest is that you expect to earn something above on top of the
risk. Then add that up over everybody in the system. They cannot all get
something extra, unless there is growth. That growth is spread over everybody
as return on investment. So, if there is no growth, then investment stops
earning that extra, so there no point in investment, so nobody hires anybody
or builds new machines.

Importantly, it's growth in total value, not growth in number of things.
Hence, it's okay that growth is infinite without gobbling up the universe - we
can always be better. Stuff can always be sexier.

~~~
psadri
You may invest to meet your basic needs. People used to build a house so they
could be sheltered from them elements, not just to flip it.

~~~
allendoerfer
But houses are already there. Especially when populations are shrinking.

~~~
psadri
Same goes for food, etc. my point was that not everything has to be for
financial gain -- we have basic needs that are higher in the priority stack
and will always be there.

About homes specifically - they have a life span too so they eventually have
to be rebuilt or, as others have pointed out, maintained.

~~~
allendoerfer
But who would want to own a company producing food, when owning cash would be
a better investment?

~~~
vivekd
There has got to be some ways in which this basic economic assumption is
wrong. Like with cars, I can buy a car and when I sell the car it will be
worth much less. But I will buy that car anyways because I need a car.

Or for a business perspective, I buy a dairy cow as an investment, when I sell
the cow it will be worth much less than what I bought it for, but I don't mind
because the cow has provided a steady stream of milk based income over the
years.

So in these ways at least, it doesn't seem like economic prosperity is always
dependent on growth.

Maybe in some economic circumstances cash might be a better investment or
worth more than my dairy cow, but such a circumstance can't last for long
because supply and demand affect money too right - so if enough people get rid
of their dairy cow for the cash, eventually that would decrease the supply of
milk, increasing price which would put me and my milk business back on top
again would it not?

~~~
allendoerfer
Owning a new car seems like a good investment. You get a bit more car than
when buying a used car plus you get a bit more status. When prices of cars
drop and better means of transportation arrive you would just keep your cash
and use an Uber for example.

With the cow I think the problem is that many people would buy a cow to fulfil
the basic need so margins would be extremely thin. People would soon stop
buying cows again.

I think this would be generally the case in such a situation: Everything would
be a commodity and margins would approach zero. You need only very few people
to produce commodities. The majority of the population would be unemployed.

This is not a bad outlook per se, my argument is just that our current system
needs growth. We would have to gradually adjust the system once we realize
that there is now way to create growth any more.

------
cheriot
Bill Gates' review of this book takes a techo-optimist view of it.

[https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-
Americ...](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-American-
Growth)

"Most reviews have focused on the “fall” indicated in the title: the last
hundred pages or so, in which Gordon predicts that the future won’t live up to
the past in terms of economic growth. I strongly disagree with him on that
point, as I discuss below. But I did find his historical analysis, which makes
up the bulk of the book, utterly fascinating"

~~~
jamesrom
Excellent read. Thanks.

Something I've always tried to understand is the value of these digital
things. How much would it cost, in 1970, to have a library of all the worlds
music? Today it's 10 bucks a month.

How much value do we put on information? What is the value of the bits of
information that make up the Wikipedia page "Smallpox vaccine"? How about in
1960? Can you even put a dollar value on it?

~~~
AJ007
The answer is these things have an immense amount of value. To even say the
value of technology an average person accesses today is double that of 1970 is
wrong, it is a lot more than that. Much or even most of that value is
underutilized.

I think a combination of the following lead to a completely perverted
understanding of money:

\- politicalization of economics \- the reflexive nature of markets \- the
tendency of both academics and professionals to seek the assignment of natural
laws to market behavior \- time lags in the market making it take years or
even decades to discover something was worth a lot less than the amount
invested

Fundamentally money is just meant to be a way to account for limited resources
between trading parties. If the trading parties are doing something
destructive, money doesn't know that. I've also used the analogy before that
the trying to measure things in prices as money supply changes is also like
trying to use a yard stick which changes in size frequently. Simple if you
have some metrics from the central bank, but actually not so simple because of
all the complex moving missing pieces (including what other currencies are
doing.)

The real global fear factor right now is that a great deal of institutions and
individuals have a strong interest in inflation rather than deflation. These
are groups whose future is based on prices for things largely going one
direction, up. If you earn a living by spending borrowed money -- or being
paid by earned interest -- you need this.

A lot of people thrive in situations where someone can hand them a blueprint
of what to do along with a bunch of money. They follow it, copy, and get the
output. That is largely what current growth numbers measure.

The reality is, of course, everything can't grow forever. That isn't a bad
thing.

What I think is the greatest concern right now, the greatest danger, is not 1%
global growth or even -1%. Instead, it is how nation states decide to react to
slow growth. Quite a few are trying to finance their way out. Others may
attempt to do disruptive things such as wars. I think we are more than a
decade in to these reactions, by the way.

If fossil fuels are as dangerous as we think, a global slow down or
contraction may end up saving us. Right now the countries which are growing
are still copy and pasting their way to a pretty non-sustainable future.

There is another situation where real growth is negative but available money
supply is increasing and prices are going up. That is very painful to be in,
but a real future possible outcome.

------
georgeecollins
Thomas Piketty is so important about this because he shows how exceptional
America was in that it had plentiful capital in terms of land, so that labor
was unusually valuable vs capital when compared to Europe. It shapes
American's thinking in a positive way, but we need to acknowledge things have
changed. Formerly, almost anyone who was willing to work hard and take a risk
could build a homestead. Now the conditions for opportunity are available but
more restricted.

~~~
splintercell
> Now the conditions for opportunity are available but more restricted. <

Restricted, yet it beats rest of the world hands down in terms of
opportunities.

When the rest of the world looks at America, they just see a nation which got
lucky with land and capital. But the fact is, America had people before it was
discovered by the Europeans, and there was no great civilization here unlike
almost everywhere else in the world, which leads you to believe that maybe it
isn't really all about the geography.

America is a plentiful place where individuals who wanted to achieve something
(the 'American way of thinking') they arrived here. This still holds true, and
will continue to hold true as long as this American way of thinking remains
around.

~~~
badsock
That belief is widespread in America, but is unsupported by data. If you look
at how hard it is for an American to rise out of the conditions they were born
in, they're worse off than if they'd been born in (for example) France,
Germany, Canada, or Denmark:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobilit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg)

From:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility)
(see the "Worldwide" section).

~~~
georgeecollins
Piketty's work was a history of the previous century. You are pointing out
current statistics, which make his point that things have changed.

------
gggggg11111
Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth
can not continue even accelerate.

Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel
(getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to
renewables and fusion (getting there)

Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve
more ads and how to get people spend their free time locked in their walled
garden...

~~~
eru
How do you know the size of the universe we live in?

(To be pedantic, even in an infinite universe the size of the human-sphere
couldn't grow faster than a ball expanding at the speed of light.)

~~~
gggggg11111
Because that is the prevalent scientific opinion

We are on a course for a confluence of some major technologies this century
which could result in another great leap forward.

Anyways i forgot why i dont bother to reply much on this site, got down voted
for my above comment yet no indication as to why (is it my comment about
working on advertising? its ok that's what I work in too myself have to pay
bills somehow, but would rather do something more interesting).

~~~
eru
The observable universe is very much finite. (And if speed of light is a
barrier, than the observable universe is about the biggest thing we can ever
influence.)

Sure, there will be lots of nice technology coming over the next century. No
doubts about that.

~~~
gggggg11111
Lets assume we develop technology to travel at near light speeds and go mad
colonising the universe, what exactly contains us to the observable universe,
move 4 light years in another direction and your observable horizon shifts

~~~
atrus
Except the expansion is happening faster than the speed of light.

[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-
universe/c...](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-
universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-
universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate)

------
tonyedgecombe
Up to 1700 the British went through a period of 400 years with virtually no
growth per capita:

[http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndCompa...](http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndComparative/papers2011-12/Papers/Broadberry.pdf)

One thing that did boost growth in that period was the black death.

------
wazoox
By definition, growth is unsustainable in the long term.

GDP growth is totally, completely correlated to energy consumption. In the
future, energy availability will at best plateau, or more probably decline.
GDP growth then will be a blip in a long trend of stability, and steep decline
is ahead to fall back to a sustainable level (i.e. entirely from renewable
resources, as it was for the past millions of years).

Data speaks for itself, see many article from a physicist here:
[http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions-
in...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions-indefinite-
growth/)

See immense resources from a specialized engineer here:
[http://manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/kaya_...](http://manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/kaya_equation.html)

------
Meegul
Freakonomics made a good podcast with the author of this book regarding this
topic [1]. I can't say I agree with it, but it's an interesting listen
nonetheless.

[1]: [http://freakonomics.com/podcast/american-
growth/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/american-growth/)

------
cheriot
Maybe growth has slowed, not because of an inherent limit of technology, but
because we just don't have problems as big as our great-grandparents. The
biggest enemy we have left is ourselves. We crave attention more, overeat, and
look forward to a retirement where our minds waste away.

There are some exciting advances we need to extend the modern world to all of
humanity without destroying the planet. But for those of us already living
with the best humanity has to offer, our biggest limitation is ourselves.

I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving
our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one? Things
like wikipedia are valuable and don't contribute to GDP. But then shouldn't
people be happier than 20 years ago?

~~~
alanwatts
>I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving
our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one?

 _GDP /GNP is not a measurement of happiness or standard of living._

>Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and
ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our
doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction
of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts
napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight
the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the
television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our
children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our
children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not
include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the
intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It
measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning,
neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything
in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us
everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

-RFK, Speech at the University of Kansas at Lawrence (18 March 1968)

~~~
cheriot
Right, I'm trying to think of things that are increasing happiness and are not
affecting GDP (which the book's author uses to justify the "fall").

~~~
alanwatts
Computing and renewable energy methods are becoming exponentially more
powerful and less expensive to produce, a process called ephemeralization.

------
throw2016
Growth and progress are dehumanised meaningless terms when divorced from
quality of life of all citizens on earth. You can have massive unsustainable
growth that only filters to the top percentages and destroys the environment.
This is quasi feudalism.

Currently we seem to have an economic system whose sole purpose seems to make
a few wealthy. Any technological, social and political progress is a side
effect to sustain the primary purpose of wealth for a few, and should any of
the side effects come in the way of the primary purpose it will be quashed,
which seems a tad uncivilised. These billions are just a social number more
than anything else, and do not do anything meaningful, apart from affording
power, privilege to sustain an inherently exploitative cycle with serious
environmental consequences.

Capitalism by its very nature can only reward the top percentages, the moment
demand rises with scarce resources prices rise too, leaving a small exclusive
group with disproportionate wealth and power always in control.

The market cannot decide anything without heavy constraints, and will take us
quickly to a gridlock. In a non functioning traffic intersection, humans will
always act not in enlightened self interest or common interest but short term
immediate self interest which is neither good for them, everyone else or their
environment, evidenced in the ensuing gridlock that will leave everyone
including themselves stranded. Yet we set up a system that rewards this
uncivilised base individual behavior to get ahead at all costs nevermind
anything else. If low cost drives choices it only means the market will rush
to exploitation and plunder without constraining rules. If someone is
plundering the environment or using slaves an informed choice can only happen
if the consumers know about it, cares about it and by the time this happens
irreversible damage to the environment or social structure may already be
done. Power could ensure information is not available, propaganda or lack of
choice for alternatives. Capitalism cannot deliver an egalitarian enlightened
sustainable society and is not designed to, only promise to while the small
elite control the cycle.

Currently the elite will always support the system out of self interest
nevermind the consequences for everyone else or the environment while others
seek a way to break into the club or an alternative way. This is inherently
unstable and will lead to periodic purges or paranoia and control of the
population. Like the old quote goes there is enough for everyone's need but
not for their greed.

------
crimsonalucard
This. Finally. People on HN think that startups, technology and economic
growth have unlimited potential. This is pure stupidity at its finest.
Observations of the natural world show a general trend: that everything, from
physical resources to energy has limits. It is a mistake to believe that this
general observation does not apply to technology and the human imagination.

While we can comprehend what a limit in oil production is... we simply cannot
comprehend exactly where or what a limit to the human imagination or
technology is... This leads to a false illusion that there is no limit... The
reality is: An inability to comprehend something does not lend any evidence to
the idea that human potential is unlimited. Like science, true understanding
comes from observations of the natural world and as all things observed in the
natural world... it is far more likely for humanity to eventually reach a
limit in technology.

Whether that limit is among us is debateable. Computing has shown dramatic
improvements in the past decade but outside of having an app for everything in
my phone, nothing has really changed in the past two decades.

~~~
piaste
This is some of the shallowest, most misleading insight I've ever read.

"Human achievement will probably reach a limit at some point" is effectively
an empty statement. Even if you could take its truth for granted, it is
completely useless information.

There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a
limit that is unknowable and unguessable. Your behaviour should stay exactly
the same either way - i.e. try to achieve as much as you can - until that
limit becomes known or guessable in some way.

(This argument is basically a very slight variation on Russell's teapot.)

~~~
feral
I think the strongly worded logic in your post is questionable.

> There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and
> a limit that is unknowable and unguessable.

Thought experiment:

Situation 1: I rely on a single food source, which I know is unlimited.

Situation 2: I rely on a single food source, which I'm not sure is unlimited,
but I can't guess when it'll run out.

> Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way, until that limit
> becomes known or guessable in some way

Really? Because if I was in situation 2, I would be preparing a contingency.
Trying to find another food source. By the time the limit of my current source
became knowable, it might be too late and I would starve. The right time to
prepare is from a position of strength.

That's an actionable difference - do you think this is a valid counterexample
to your logic? Or is something not appropriate?

~~~
piaste
Yes, I was referring to the subject at hand - human achievement / technology /
innovation - not making a universal statement about everything that may have
limits.

But I can see how my post could read that way. I'll make that clearer.

------
dzdt
Sounds like an interesting book. From the linked review, the main thesis that
many improvements from 1870-1970 are one-time-only events seems sound. I also
agree with the assessment that 'singularity' theories are hokum. (That may be
more controversial here on HN!)

It does sound like he might underestimate the effects of the coming AI/robot
revolution. Over the next 75 years, any job definable by its output may be
taken over by a robot. What is left are service and creative occupations where
the human presence and artistry is valued. But this will entail a huge
economic upheaval.

The other giant quality-of-life advancement that might be out there is slowing
or eliminating the effects of aging. That would also come with giant problems
of inequality (if it is narrowly available) or population pressure (if it is
widely available). But it would surely be another huge advancement for its
beneficiaries.

------
bubbleRefuge
Modern money is created by keystrokes[1]. We(the US) are no longer on the gold
standard(a good thing). In order to have conditions for economic growth(say
GDP growth) to occur aggregate income must increase. There are only two
possible drivers: Government goes into debt or the private sector goes into
debt where debt = spending more than ones income. If government policy makers
were to use fiscal policy based economic models that paid closer attention to
aggregate debt and aggregate income balances we could have much smoother
business cycle and avoid deep recessions where the private sector wants to
deleverage. The only thing to fear is inflation and we have never truly
sniffed demand pull inflation in the US ever. The 80's was supply shock
petroleum based inflation.

The Federal government needs to put its foot on the accelerator and not the
brakes but the politicians don't know where the accelerator is.

[1] [http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/where-did-the-
fed...](http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/where-did-the-federal-
reserve-get-all-that-money.html)

------
marcoperaza
There are many breakthroughs waiting to be made in medicine, energy
production, geoengineering, space exploration, transportation, etc. Automation
and AI will increase productivity and leisure time, which will allow the
market for entertainment, travel, and luxury to grow much larger than today,
and be accessible to many more people.

But if we succumb to this pessimism, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

~~~
collyw
"Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time".

We got told this in the 70's (the automation part at least), yet seem to be
working more and more hours now.

~~~
d4nt
It seems to me that the amount of time people work stays broadly constant, but
automation changes what is considered "work".

To a farm labourer from 500 years ago, sitting on factory production line
attaching two parts together doesn't feel much like work.

To a production line worker from 100 years ago, sitting at a computer typing
emails to people and going to meetings doesn't feel much like work.

To us today, sitting around while the 3D printers in your factory print
whatever your AI engine says they should, doesn't feel much like work. But I
have a feeling that future generations will get tired of constantly analysing
their performance and adjusting parameters.

~~~
collyw
By that reasoning Steven Hawking is hardly doing anything, as he barely moves.
Work doesn't need to mean physical labor.

~~~
randomdata
Isn't that his point? 500 years ago, nobody would be willing to hire Steven
Hawking. Period. He simply isn't capable of doing anything resembling what
they would have considered work, even with the use of the modern tools he uses
to interact with the world. Today, however, he is able to be a completely
productive member of society because the work we need to do is completely
different – and the work we need to do 500 years from now will unlikely
resemble much of what we do today.

------
tim333
>At the point where computers have achieved superintelligence, we have reached
the Singularity

>...Gordon has no sympathy for these futuristic views.

Kind of dumb really. Like discussing growth at the start of the industrial
revolution and having no sympathy for the idea of an industrial revolution.

------
nabla9
To keep discussion grounded. We should think this trough economic growth
models. What model we use is not that important. You can use simple
neoclassical Solow-Swan model as starting point and add more factors as you
go.

You can play with the model in Wolfram Alpha
[http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrow...](http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrowthModel/)

Techno-optimists often argue naively that technological progress or increase
in human capital works like magic without understanding how they dynamically
interact with more basic factors of production like capital, output and labor.

------
minikites
This article reminds me of [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-
victor-def...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-
deficit-growth)

>It took a couple of decades, but unemployment eventually fell to 4 percent,
most people's standards of living actually rose, and greenhouse gas emissions
decreased to well below Kyoto levels. The economy reached a "steady state."
And if the model is accurate, then something like it, say some ecologically
minded economists, may be the only way for humanity to survive in the long
term.

------
known
First things first [http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-
you-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-
think-2013-3) AND this [http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-a-
myth-in-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-a-myth-in-the-
us-2013-3)

------
haywirez
Degrowth[0] is an interesting related perspective/solution to check out.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)

------
edoceo
Growth at scale, to bubble up to the oligarchs maybe fails.

Sustainable Growth for the local business, small market business keeps going.

Small business employs more people than the "big guys" and is a real core
economic driver.

------
damptowel
Mandatory post :)

Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

------
havetocharge
I think it would be helpful to quantify the measure of world warfare. I think
it would correspond to economic growth.

Nuclear weapons and public opinion on war act as a huge deterrent to large
scale mobilizations, so we've reached peak war, and with it, peak economy.

