AuthorTopic: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?  (Read 16183 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2015, 02:02:15 AM »
GO i just want to add to your point about 2.5 billion people in india and china,  add other neighboring countries like phillipines islands almost 100 million,  indonesian archipeligo 250 million.. malaysia... singapore.. vietnam burma. Laos ..canbodia. bangladesh.. they  Make over  half the people in the world All in asia. Many work in various wealthy countries as cheap slave labour and domestic helpers etc with food and board provided and send most of the money they make home to feed their family. I see those jobs drying up  as low oil prices hurt the oil exporting places and financial centres are not far behind. Add to this the problem of simultaneous flood and drought in so many places including usa,  qld,  and these asians.

Thanks Unc and understood. Why India and it's billion citizens as well as the others you mention are always left out of these discussions is amazing to me, especially when the folks discussing the matter are concerned with scarce resources and environmental as well as economic problems.

Unc, I live in total fear and constant dread of this financial bubble bursting because of the economic interdependence that has come about in the last two decades. Thanks for pointing out how truly dependent we all are on each other in today's world, few it seems understand it, and the horrors that will come to so many people. I like Alan and he brings a positive spin to the table, but his ideas of a back up here being healthy and the pause that refreshes are way off base in my view. It will be misery on steroids for billions of folks, and will not be at all pleasant, as it happens, or the aftermath, as I surmise it.  :'(

You have company. Another handful of billionaires agrees with Nick Hanauer. None of them mention the poor of India, Indonesia or the Pacific Rim. But the point remains: the center cannot hold.

Quote
Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."

What Keeps A Billionaire Awake At Night: "Envy, Hatred, Social Warfare" And The "Destruction Of The Middle Class"

There is something morbidly ironic when one of the world's richest men, in this case South African Johann Rupert, who has made billions (his net worth is roughly $7.5 billion) peddling Cartier jewelry and Chloe fashion as founder and chairman of luxury conglomerate Richemont, whose 20 brands also include Vacheron Constantin and Montblanc, said tension between the rich and poor is set to escalate, that the "envy, hatred and the social warfare" may crush society, and that "we are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us."

According to Bloomberg, Rupert said that “we cannot have 0.1 percent of 0.1 percent taking all the spoils,” adding that “it’s unfair and it is not sustainable." Being among the 0.1% of said "0.1% of 0.1%" he should know.

“How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?” he said. “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. It’s unfair. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.”

One other person who has been quite a fan of such as "fairness doctrine", at least as far as it does not directly affect his personal wealth, is none other than crony capitalist and railroad enthusiast #1, Obama's personal tax advisor and the world's third richest man: Warren Buffett, who for all his sage advice on income tax has had surprisingly little to say about taxation on financial assets/capital, esatate of carried interest tax. Or has, in any other way, provided any of his wealth for "fair" use among the destitute.

Which is why we skeptical of Rupert's preaching and motives, especially since he himself, unlike millions of other people, actually can do something about "unfair" social inequality if he really feels the deep urge.

Furthermore, it is now much too late to do anything about the social issues which Rupert accurately lays out as the biggest problems facing the world. There was some hope in 2008 when resetting the "unfair" system was a distinct possibility, however it was if not Rupert, than his billionaire banker peers who hijacked the system once more, transferred some $50 trillion in wealth away from the global middle class to the "0.1% of 0.1%", and have virtually assured a revolution or war.

Which incidentally is precisely what another billionaire, Paul Tudor Jones, warned is coming.  Recall from his mid-March TED talk:

Quote
"This gap between the 1 percent and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist...  Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."
Still, we must admit we have a sweet spot for Rupert. As Bloomberg describes the university dropout whose father made a fortune setting up Rembrandt Tobacco Corp. and selling it off, has in the past made other social critiques. Nicknamed ‘Rupert the Bear’ for his pessimistic views on the economy, the 65-year-old refers to himself as a “reformed prostitute,” having spent a decade as an investment banker. He said in 2008 that the collateral damage from the financial crisis was yet to come.

“We’re in for a huge change in society,” he said Monday. “Get used to it. And be prepared.”

Yet what is surprising is that instead of laying the blame squarely where it belongs, at the feet of the Mandarins inhabiting the Marriner Eccles building, and their equally clueless central banker peers around the globe, Rupert mostly accuses technology and... robots?!

Quote
[T]ension between the rich and poor is set to escalate as robots and artificial intelligence fuel mass unemployment.
 
The founder and chairman of Richemont... said he expects advances in technology to lead to job losses after having read books on the subject recently. Conflicts between social classes will make selling luxury goods more tricky as the rich will want to conceal their wealth, Rupert said in a speech Monday at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco.

Don't worry Johann: by the time there is a robot for every job, the entire market will have taken itself private thanks to the unseen "cost-savings" as the companies of the S&P500 fire everyone except the executive suite. And for that is just one automaton you have to thank: whichever banker puppet is currently in charge of the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the BOJ, the PBOC or the SNB.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2015, 03:43:31 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.
I'm sorry, I was being lazy, I didn't copy and paste the relevant passages from the link.  It's obvious from the replies that people didn't bother to look at the page.
Quote
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.[40] In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.[41] Regarding possibilities for freeing man from these limits, Malthus argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages.

In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes."[42]

His prediction was conditional: UNLESS we restrained our population growth voluntarily, it would always grow to use up any surplus food that was produced.  And, UNTIL the development of the birth control pill, that is EXACTLY what happened.

Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.  Technological solutions on the supply side don't matter, they never did, they just put off the inevitable.  Technological solutions on the demand side, on the other hand, have a meaningful effect.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2015, 06:10:26 AM »
Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

As for food supply growth, this is how he actually argued the case:

Quote
From “Essay on the Principle of Population”, First Edition, 1798
Published anonymously by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land and by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Island [Britain] may be doubled in the first 25 years, I think it will be allowing as much as any person can well demand.

In the next 25 years, it is impossible to suppose that the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive is that the increase in the second 25 years might equal the present produce.

Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly far beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole produce of the island might be increased every 25 years by a quantity of subsistence equal to what it presently produces.  The most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this.

In a few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a garden. Yet this ration of increase is evidently arithmetical. It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase in an arithmetic ratio.

Which is an argument so full of holes, Malthus should be quietly forgotten.  When a population runs out of food, it dies, and does not grow exponentially any more. Massive inequality has existed in India for millenia, and shows no sign of going away yet.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2015, 07:24:21 AM »
No, Malthus should be only be remembered for being the first scientist who figured out that there are, or could be, limits to growth. In that respect he was way ahead of the curve, in spite of being spectacularly wrong.

You can get led into these arguments now....by people whose intent is to obfuscate the truth...that population overshoot is NO PROBLEM. It'll take care of itself.

Tell that to the thousands of refugees trying to get a boat to someplace where they can find enough to eat. The way population overshoot is going to take care of itself is through starvation. It's already in progress. It just doesn't affect the heart of the empire.

Is it Malthusian? Not really. At this point, it's mostly climate change. Climate change coupled with declining per capita fossil fuel. Since Malthus knew nothing about either of those phenomena, or even speculated about them, it is disingenuous to call someone "Malthusian" because they happen to believe that population overshoot and starvation are linked. It's simply a smear tactic.

Trollery, in other words.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2015, 08:21:47 AM »
Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."

Higher taxes are coming, probably onerously high income taxes for those left with decent incomes, and onerously high sales taxes for everyone. Wars, little ones until one turns into a big one.

Revolution? Nah, by the time that comes, there won't be anything left to fight over.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2015, 08:30:46 AM »
Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

As for food supply growth, this is how he actually argued the case:

Quote
From “Essay on the Principle of Population”, First Edition, 1798
Published anonymously by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land and by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Island [Britain] may be doubled in the first 25 years, I think it will be allowing as much as any person can well demand.

In the next 25 years, it is impossible to suppose that the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive is that the increase in the second 25 years might equal the present produce.

Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly far beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole produce of the island might be increased every 25 years by a quantity of subsistence equal to what it presently produces.  The most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this.

In a few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a garden. Yet this ration of increase is evidently arithmetical. It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase in an arithmetic ratio.

Which is an argument so full of holes, Malthus should be quietly forgotten.  When a population runs out of food, it dies, and does not grow exponentially any more. Massive inequality has existed in India for millenia, and shows no sign of going away yet.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #66 on: June 09, 2015, 09:15:47 AM »
Actually, I take that back....

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

You just did a really good job of restating Malthus's argument in a different form.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #67 on: June 09, 2015, 02:42:43 PM »
I still havnt seen where malthus said there would be any huge reduction in population due to starvation by today. I did look at the link and it seems that those who argue for a levelling off or declining birth rate due to rising standard of living are arguing malthus idea and are also malthusian. Those claiming we can have double the present population if we do such things as eat bugs instead of beef are not in a position to say malthus was wrong (if he even did make a prediction off a large human die off) because their own prediction has not happened either.
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? Bull Mkt. OVER !
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2015, 03:17:13 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oX_K5GSvjgA&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/oX_K5GSvjgA&fs=1</a>
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2015, 10:44:35 AM »
Malthus used extremely sloppy arguments in his thinking - "it is more than anyone could imagine that we could double the amount of land farmed" and so on.  Well things did happen that were more than anyone could imagine, but we then found ourselves facing exactly the same predicament.  We went from wood to coal, and coal to oil and gas, and if we were to find a new energy source with a better ERoEI, then we would switch to it quickly and do things we cannot imagine now.  But there is no such energy source. That's why we're fucked.

Allan thinks renewables have very high ERoEI, but he is wrong - fooled by the people who are trying to profit from renewables.  The ERoEI when calculated properly, taking EVERY energy expediture into account, including the fences and security systems you have to put around your solar farm to stop criminals from stealing the panels, and the energy cost of mowing the grass between the panels,  leads to an ERoEI between 2.5 and 3 (Prieto and Hall).  Wind in windy locations is much better, although there are not many places like that.  But governments haven't even begun to look at things through the energy prism yet.

You're wrong, regarding solar. You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI -- Bhandari et al's meta-analysis published last year.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Defne_Apul/publication/273818473_Energy_payback_time_%28EPBT%29_and_energy_return_on_energy_invested_%28EROI%29_of_solar_photovoltaic_systems_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/55143adb0cf23203199d12be.pdf
Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Khagendra P. Bhandari b, Jennifer M. Collier a, Randy J. Ellingson b, Defne S. Apul

... see figure 7: EROI between 9 and 34, depending on type.

Also, see prior figures on energy payback times: 1-4 years (all embodied energy paid back in 1-4 years of operation; free energy afterward).

Also, important critique of Wesibach and Hall:
http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.co.at/2015/05/six-errors-in-eroei-calculations.html
Monday, May 11, 2015
Six Errors in ERoEI calculations

see also here, includes description of Bhandari and other details:
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/
What’s the EROI of Solar?
Posted on June 4, 2015 by Ramez Naam   

Low EROI figures for solar pv invariably result from foolish assumptions which never should have been made. See linked articles for details.

Another point of note is that EROI for solar and other renewables RISES over time, whereas that of FFs falls.  This is part of the new economic reality that is just now beginning to dawn in everyone's brain. The implications are truly revolutionary. Within just a few years, it will be uneconomic to build any more FF energy plants (or nuclear plants for that matter).  It simply will not make any sense, because renewables will offer such a better deal.  That is APART from any consideration of climate, CO2, pollution, or anything else. Just economics.

This new world is coming into view, as we speak.  Everyone is reeling - not just you.

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #70 on: June 17, 2015, 11:26:35 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.
I'm sorry, I was being lazy, I didn't copy and paste the relevant passages from the link.  It's obvious from the replies that people didn't bother to look at the page.
Quote
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.[40] In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.[41] Regarding possibilities for freeing man from these limits, Malthus argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages.

In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes."[42]

His prediction was conditional: UNLESS we restrained our population growth voluntarily, it would always grow to use up any surplus food that was produced.  And, UNTIL the development of the birth control pill, that is EXACTLY what happened.
He did not believe that population would be restrained voluntarily, at least not sufficiently to prevent ultimate dieoff. In his famous Essay on Population, he states that the world would run out of food completely before 1890 (!). Throughout his work it is clear that he believes plagues and mass starvation and dieoff to be inevitable. See passage below.

Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.
Regarding population, that is false. And unarguably so. The world's population is not growing exponentially. Population growth has been slowing every year for the past 30 years.

Quote
Technological solutions on the supply side don't matter, they never did, they just put off the inevitable.  Technological solutions on the demand side, on the other hand, have a meaningful effect.
To what do you attribute the demographic transition? Why did fertility collapse across most of the world over the last 60 years?

..................................

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." -- Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #71 on: June 17, 2015, 11:44:06 AM »
I still havnt seen where malthus said there would be any huge reduction in population due to starvation by today.
In his famous Essay he stated that famines would commence around mid-century (1800s), and that the world would run out of food by 1890.

Quote
Those claiming we can have double the present population if we do such things as eat bugs instead of beef are not in a position to say malthus was wrong (if he even did make a prediction off a large human die off) because their own prediction has not happened either.
Yes, "our" predictions have happened. Not regarding bugs vs. beef, of course, but regarding the ability of the world to produce enough food. Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42050
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #72 on: June 17, 2015, 11:52:09 AM »
Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.

So how come you didn't show up for the China Vidcast?  A Great Opportunity to Spin the Cornucopian Case if you are correct.

You passed up an opportunity to destroy not just me, but two other Doomer Bloggers, Ugo Bardi and Tom Lewis.


RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #73 on: June 17, 2015, 12:49:50 PM »
Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.

So how come you didn't show up for the China Vidcast?
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

Quote
A Great Opportunity to Spin the Cornucopian Case if you are correct.
Not really "spinning a case". Just posting some facts and opinions; sparring; having fun.

Quote
You passed up an opportunity to destroy not just me, but two other Doomer Bloggers, Ugo Bardi and Tom Lewis.
I don't see Ugo as a "doomer". Seems pretty level-headed and fact-based to me.

As I wrote elsewhere, he is slowly becoming aware of the new realities about renewables -- just as we all are. It is hard to put your arms around, after all the years of thinking that renewables are "good for the environment, but expensive". Well, they're not expensive any more! Ugo is coming around on this, just as everyone is.

I like Ugo. He deals with specifics, head-on, rather than deflecting with long lists of doomer talking points.

For example:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/11/renewable-energy-does-it-need.html
"the problem of mineral availability for renewable energy technologies is not critical if we choose the right technologies and we are careful to recycle the materials used as much as possible."


Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42050
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #74 on: June 17, 2015, 12:51:38 PM »
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

I have it recorded on the server.  The invitation was made over a week ago, and your IP addy shows up 3 times after that.

RE
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 02:05:49 PM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
90 Replies
17085 Views
Last post March 06, 2014, 06:55:01 PM
by Surly1
Degrowth? (post growth, end of growth... economics)

Started by JRM - James R. Martin « 1 2 3 » Energy

42 Replies
9743 Views
Last post January 07, 2014, 07:29:44 AM
by g
0 Replies
367 Views
Last post March 04, 2016, 10:03:15 AM
by Eddie