[Psudo]

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Look at some of the economic theories regarding the collapse of The Roman Empire. Eventually, a system that is built around a notion of constant growth reaches the limitations posed by how far anything can grow.

That's true of specific industries, but as long as you're adding new industries and finding uses for materials previously considered to be worthless, there's not even a theoretical limit to economic growth. Also, the USA is not reaching the furthest extent of modern communication capability, the way Rome was.

Even if there is some inescapable upper limit to economic growth where it must inevitably plateau, why believe it's going to happen within the next century or two?

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

As for growth, one has to differentiate between actual production and the boost to GDP.

I'm with you there. I support a renewed economic interest in manufacturing and goods industries. If you've got some figures for production over the past few decades, I'd love to see 'em.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

look at the population of the planet as it stands. I will not maintain that it is impossible for ways to be found to make the world's population sustainable, but I will say that no immediate solution has been proposed.

I haven't seen any remotely convincing argument that the modern population is unsustainable. Or, for that matter, that ten thousand times the current population is unsustainable. I've considered the question before. Considering only the limitations of food production (the tightest threshold I've found), there's room on Earth for at least 20 billion people even assuming that science can never again increase calorie production per acre of land. The assumptions that went into that figure are just ridiculously conservative.

In fact, if you can help me find data and sources for that page, I'd love to work with you to improve that page. Perhaps our contrasting views would give it a sense of balance.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Finally, the age bomb is something that is, honestly, unprecedented in history.

The the black plague produced a similar surge of the population of enfeebled dying. It's end produced a similar surge of health. But if you're right and the age bomb is unprecedented, your theory that the economic system will fail as a result still needs support. If the economic system cannot provide for the sudden surge in unproductive elderly, wouldn't the worst-case scenario be that it lets them die and moves on? Darwinian, Machiavellian, and Orwellian, sure. But more probable than a global society letting itself die in it's entirety.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Psudo wrote:

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Look at some of the economic theories regarding the collapse of The Roman Empire. Eventually, a system that is built around a notion of constant growth reaches the limitations posed by how far anything can grow.

That's true of specific industries, but as long as you're adding new industries and finding uses for materials previously considered to be worthless, there's not even a theoretical limit to economic growth. Also, the USA is not reaching the furthest extent of modern communication capability, the way Rome was.

Even if there is some inescapable upper limit to economic growth where it must inevitably plateau, why believe it's going to happen within the next century or two?

The issue with the Roman economic collapse wasn't an issue of communication difficulties. The problems were that government expenditures always assumed a new frontier to conquer and to make a profit. The Empire's economy collapsed because it was unsustainable without physical growth. The productive east held out longer because it had more economic viability and had been used, more or less, to subsidize the western territories. Even then, you can see stagnation in the Byzantine empire as it reached a stalemate with its neighbors. The problem occurs when constant growth cannot be maintained and a system exists dependent on it. The cost of defending the empire and pacifying the population was too great for the economy to manage without periodically ransacking somebody.

Psudo wrote:

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

As for growth, one has to differentiate between actual production and the boost to GDP.

I'm with you there. I support a renewed economic interest in manufacturing and goods industries. If you've got some figures for production over the past few decades, I'd love to see 'em.

I'm not nearly as talented as you are at getting hard data from sources easy to cite. The general buzz that I've been hearing is that manufacturing is not down as low as many think, but mechanization has decreased the labor force while upping productivity. However, it seems from general impressions and observations that actual production is on the decline. Part of it depends on what you call manufacturing. For instance, in the auto industry, they say cars are made in America, but that's generally only somewhat true. The parts are from other places, and the assembly is done in the states. The creation of the product is done abroad and the assembly is done locally.

Psudo wrote:

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

look at the population of the planet as it stands. I will not maintain that it is impossible for ways to be found to make the world's population sustainable, but I will say that no immediate solution has been proposed.

I haven't seen any remotely convincing argument that the modern population is unsustainable. Or, for that matter, that ten thousand times the current population is unsustainable. I've considered the question before. Considering only the limitations of food production (the tightest threshold I've found), there's room on Earth for at least 20 billion people even assuming that science can never again increase calorie production per acre of land. The assumptions that went into that figure are just ridiculously conservative.

In fact, if you can help me find data and sources for that page, I'd love to work with you to improve that page. Perhaps our contrasting views would give it a sense of balance.

I'll try to find hard data on this. The estimates are many and varied, but there's a key point that you may be overlooking. Suppose that the world is physically capable of producing that much in the way of food. Who is to say it will? I live on two acres. My two acres of land could feed a lot of people. Nearly everybody on my street has about that much. We use it for grass. How many millions of potential calories are not being used because of people's lawns? How many areas will never be cultivated because there are parks, or because, for whatever reason, the people who own it will not part from it. The potential in theory and humanity's capability to give up a slight personal benefit for the greater good are different things. The US could probably feed the world, but I can't imagine that we will. Capacity is secondary to will.

Psudo wrote:

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Finally, the age bomb is something that is, honestly, unprecedented in history.

The the black plague produced a similar surge of the population of enfeebled dying. It's end produced a similar surge of health. But if you're right and the age bomb is unprecedented, your theory that the economic system will fail as a result still needs support. If the economic system cannot provide for the sudden surge in unproductive elderly, wouldn't the worst-case scenario be that it lets them die and moves on? Darwinian, Machiavellian, and Orwellian, sure. But more probable than a global society letting itself die in it's entirety.

The issue of the black plague was that it allowed for a restructuring of society along more sustainable lines. Famines ceased to be issues in Italy, which had often suffered from them, because there was a better ratio of land to peasant. A surplus could be had. There was a greater demand for labor with fewer laborers, which meant that there was more money going to the lower classes instead of just sitting in the coffers of the nobles. Even when the population boomed under the breeding of the survivors whose surplus of goods and food lowered infant mortality, the capacity to rebuild things along new lines made the system fare better than it had been, even with comparable population.
I do not think it is certain that the economic system will fail when the bomb hits, but I wonder at the consequences. People need to be weaned from the nanny state slowly, I fear that if it's going to happen, they'll be ripped from it. I work at a law firm and a lot of what I do is estate planning and medicaid applications. The role of government social programs is critical to a lot of people whose lives, quite literally at times, depend on a few hundred dollars from Uncle Sam. The elderly vote in proportionally larger numbers, and they're growing in absolute numbers. Who will get elected by telling the majority of their voters that they're not getting what they feel entitled to receive?
There are ways around some of these problems, there are ways to stop some of them, there's a LOT that can be done. None of these problems and none of these issues are without viable solutions and ways to fix them. However, none of them have a popular, easy to tolerate, vote getting solution at the moment. I will grant, there's always the chance that some random thing will come along and fix stuff, but every time that it happens, I wonder if we're not growing dependent on an economic deus ex machina. The whole order of the world needs to be looked at, but I don't think that anybody willing is able and I know nobody able is willing.

[Proculation]

I went to the municipal court and ... yes i'm in a lot of debt.

[Psudo]

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

The issue with the Roman economic collapse wasn't an issue of communication difficulties.

No, but communication limitations factionalize massive empires geographically in a way that a world united by the Internet does not face. To have the nation divided geographically rather than ideologically is a very valid reason Rome and the USA are not so reasonably compared as you might imagine.

The industry diversity was the stronger point. The USA is not dependent on militant expansion to maintain our economy; on the contrary, it's a strong threat to our economic stability. Instead, we make money by finding value in what was previously undervalued (ie, making electronics out of sand, or energy out of toxic uranium and sludge of prehistoric biomatter). As long as we keep inventing new industries, what theoretical limit is there to economic production? Mass?

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

I'll try to find hard data on this.

Appreciated!

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

there's a key point that you may be overlooking. Suppose that the world is physically capable of producing that much in the way of food. Who is to say it will?

The intent is to discover a maximum possible population given very conservative assumptions. "Maximum possible" requires that all arable land is in use, but "conservative assumptions" means science is assumed never to increase average production above the modern global average. Those contradictory assumptions, one liberal and one conservative, cancel each other out at least approximately. A positive number minus another positive number is always closer to zero than the greater of the two.

Besides, the experiment gets exponentially more complicated as the pursuit of realism rejects assumption after assumption. In order to make any estimation even remotely feasible to calculate, one must admit one can't know enough to make the estimate precise and make it simple instead. So I did. Once I have well-sourced, reasonable figures for the simplified version, I can start adding complexities.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

The issue of the black plague was that it allowed for a restructuring of society along more sustainable lines.

That's a major objection I have to advocacy for sustainability for it's own sake: the most sustainable possible human population is zero. I think an abundance of humanity is also a virtue, to be weighed against sustainability. In other words, if the black plague is an aid to sustainability and the discovery and implementation of antiseptics is bad for sustainability, I feel morally obliged to oppose sustainability because it appears to oppose human life.

I know, that's imprecise logic. Still, the sentiment is there. I can't support sustainability unless it's not the environment, not the government, not the societal status quo, but specifically humans that we're trying to sustain.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

The role of government social programs is critical to a lot of people whose lives, quite literally at times, depend on a few hundred dollars from Uncle Sam.

That statement isn't possible. Their lives may indeed be dependent on a few hundred dollars, but what institution provides the money cannot possibly affect their medical outcome. Imagine the reduction in bureaucratic run-around, legal proceedings, and general emotional strain if people were provided the same services by charitable benefactors rather than entitled to them under the law.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

I will grant, there's always the chance that some random thing will come along and fix stuff, but every time that it happens, I wonder if we're not growing dependent on an economic deus ex machina.

You said the solution would not be a big vote-getter. Thus, if a solution is passed before the system fails and people are violently torn from their nanny state protections, it by necessity must be a secret plan that seems to the common voter to appear from nowhere at the precise moment it is needed. That doesn't mean politicians and policy wonks haven't been struggling with it behind the scenes for precisely the same reasons you fear are being ignored. That's the difference between deus ex machina in literature and in real people; in reality, it usually takes precise, meticulous planning to pull off the epic save.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a pyramid scheme, and it's starting to catch up with us as we speak.

Social security is certainly not a Pyramid scheme since people don't get their Social Security payments for enrolling more people to Social Security. You probably meant the very similar Ponzi scheme. But it is not accurate to describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme either. Social Security doesn't promise any abnormally high returns like Ponzi schemes usually do. Ponzi schemes are never sustainable without continuously attracting more investors whereas Social Security can be sustainable even with no population growth. If the Social Security system is not currently sustainable, it can be made so by increasing payroll taxes, cutting benefits, raising the age of retirement, or some combination of these three. These may not be politically easy, but it is what I suspect will happen.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

I don't think that I'm predicting something unprecedented.
Look at some of the economic theories regarding the collapse of The Roman Empire. Eventually, a system that is built around a notion of constant growth reaches the limitations posed by how far anything can grow. Problems ensue.

Nonetheless, Rome didn't collapse immediately after it stopped growing, but remained quite viable for long time. When it collapsed it was not a disaster for everyone, even though the Empire as a centrally governed body ceased to exist. Many of the economic woes that the Romans then had stemmed from sacking by foreign military forces. And the Byzantine empire remained prosperous long after the Western Rome was lost.

The current situation is very different. No country depends on continuous territorial expansion and I don't think there are similar military threats.

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

Finally, the age bomb is something that is, honestly, unprecedented in history. That's another troubling factor that I don't think gets much attention.

Really? My impression has been that it gets very much attention.

Aging baby boomers can be a great burden on our society, but I don't think that they are Harbingers of Doom. Also, they will only burden the society for a limited time (some decades). I don't think they will cause any long term problems (long here means longer than the few decades).

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

The USA's GDP has both been increasing exponentially and consistently for some time, as has Canada's (more or less). Even so, both GDP per capita figures also follow that pattern fairly consistently, though Canada's is a little more erratic.

I just want comment that since these graphs apparently use the official exchange rate to compare the economies of different countries, the erratic jumps in Canada's GDP are probably due to exchange rate fluctuations. US has no similar fluctuations since the US dollar is used as the reference currency here.

[Psudo]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

If the Social Security system is not currently sustainable, it can be made so by increasing payroll taxes, cutting benefits, raising the age of retirement, or some combination of these three. These may not be politically easy, but it is what I suspect will happen.

There are also various programs, I understand, which draw their funding from the Social Security fund despite vague or no links to Social Security. Or so I've heard, anyway.

QW's points about exchange rates affecting Canada's graph make sense, too.