Spanish soccer pro quits sports in criticism of capitalism

[Barrister]

But oil isn't a "pretty limited resource".  It is only limited at any given price point and technology.

Most everything is limited at any given price and technology, so I'm not sure what your statement is saying other than that supply curves exist.  However, not every supply curve is the same.  Supply curve for oil appears to be quite inelastic, at least in the short term, given how sharply oil price is rising due to demand growth.

But it's much more elastic in the long term.

Short term price fluctuations do not equal a "limited resource".

[Barrister]

As long as we live on a planet with finite resources, there cannot be infinite economic growth.

The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun.  But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.

[Bluebook]

The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun.  But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.

Oh come on, you cannot be serious.

Those X kgs of mass cannot be transformed into whatever commodity that is needed. Take drinking water as an example, that tends to be a rather desired commodity, and the amount of drinking water accessible is definitively not an infinite resource.

[Barrister]

The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun.  But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.

Oh come on, you cannot be serious.

Those X kgs of mass cannot be transformed into whatever commodity that is needed. Take drinking water as an example, that tends to be a rather desired commodity, and the amount of drinking water accessible is definitively not an infinite resource.

Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.

You've heard of wastewater purification?  Desalinization? Increased efficiencies in industrial applications?

Not to mention GDP is not tied very strongly to the production of any single, or any bundle, of physical resources. 

[Bluebook]

Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.

Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?

[DGuller]

I think what Beeb is discounting is most of human history.  The paradigm we live in now has been in force for only the last two centuries or so.  For most of human history, per capita economic growth has been virtually flat.  Assuming that the last two centuries will now be the rule going forward for many millenia, rather than an exceptional blip that will eventually exhaust itself, seems overly optimistic to me.

[Barrister]

Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.

Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?

Not really.

People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine.  When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.

[Barrister]

I think what Beeb is discounting is most of human history.  The paradigm we live in now has been in force for only the last two centuries or so.  For most of human history, per capita economic growth has been virtually flat.  Assuming that the last two centuries will now be the rule going forward for many millenia, rather than an exceptional blip that will eventually exhaust itself, seems overly optimistic to me.

Not at all - on any of your points.

I'm not discounting human history.  For most of human history per capita economic growth has been lower than now, but NOT flat.  And I am aware of that.

And of course what has changed in the last (two centuries?  more than that - more like 300-400) isn't a sudden influx of new resources (though there has been some of that), but rather technological and societal advances that have dramatically increased human productivity.  And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.

[DGuller]

Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.

Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?

Not really.

People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine.  When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.

You're ignoring his point. 

It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries.  Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer.  You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.

[Bluebook]

Not really.

People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine.  When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.

My example was of cource based on current prizes, so you forgot to add inflation to the cost of that glass of water. Thus, when our garbageman has to pay $2 billion for a glass of water, I believe my point about lack of economic growth still stands.

Your point about resources only being limited by price and technology is flawed, and you are not allowed to take "wishful thinking"-types of inventions and technology into the equation.

[Barrister]

Not really.

People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine.  When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.

My example was of cource based on current prizes, so you forgot to add inflation to the cost of that glass of water. Thus, when our garbageman has to pay $2 billion for a glass of water, I believe my point about lack of economic growth still stands.

Your point about resources only being limited by price and technology is flawed, and you are not allowed to take "wishful thinking"-types of inventions and technology into the equation.

Why is it "wishful thinking" to assume that long-standing trends will continue?

You're right in that if all technological advancement (and societal advancement) stops as of tomorrow, August 13th, then yes we will eventuall may max out GDP.

But you might as well say the same thing if the Rapture happens tomorrow.

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

[Barrister]

And this is not to say we shouldn't worry about any individual situation - that we shouldn't worry about running out of arable land in Sweden, or worry about the ozone layer or global warming.

It's just this big picture argument that there is a "limit to growth" that has been consistently predicted, and consistently found wrong, over decades.

[DGuller]

And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.

There is no reason to assume that it will just continue chugging along either.  Just because humanity broke through the constraint that limited it for millenia doesn't mean that we won't eventually reach a new constraint (and not in a hundred generations' time, but considerably sooner).

[DGuller]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

Now you're just creating a strawman.  Who says it's going to suddenly stop?  In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops.  It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.

[Razgovory]

And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic.  But something that is 10¹⁰⁰ years away is pretty safely irrelevant.

There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.

Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?

Yes?

Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history.  There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.

Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy?  Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history).  The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology.  Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution.  An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword.  An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC.  Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier.  Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.