Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Malthusian

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

A modern economy absolutely needs growth, it's a fundamental of it. Without increasing demand and production and consumption it's impossible to service increasing debt.

No it isn't. If you owe £1,000 on a credit card is it impossible to service the debt unless you get a higher-paying job?

TrickyTree83

Malthusian wrote: »

No it isn't. If you owe £1,000 on a credit card is it impossible to service the debt unless you get a higher-paying job?

Personal debt is a different beast, it's not directly comparable to the way in which the finance system operates.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's moot.

It doesn't matter, Labour or Conservative.

Reducing government borrowing will just prop up the current situation, excessive borrowing (see USA) begins to make people doubt the model. So one will be pushing the model to excess and the other will be attempting to keep it going as long as possible.

Ultimately both will fail.

It's like trying to argue what's better for you, a bullet to the head or a slow poison. Both have the same final result, they just achieve it in different ways.

Interesting points, but relying too much on the extreme of the two viewpoints assigned to Labour and Conservative methinks.

The way I look at it is to recognise that it is important to reduce our borrowing reasonably quickly in order to reduce the cost of it. In any economy there are projects to fund, emergencies to react to, demographic pressures to manage etc and, conversely, boom times to luxuriate in. The important thing is to be able to react to the downward events, and running an economy at a position near the surplus/deficit boundary seems to me to be a good place to be, where a temporary large borrowing need can be done without major impact or tipping us over the edge to a new bit of austerity "medicine".

Being at that boundary gives us that precious gift of choice. We are not so constrained by the economy itself on what we do either on social matters or infrastructure or commercial matters.

In that context it's not so much about Labour or Conservative as people like to stereotype them, but about a general consensus to face up to economic and social responsibilities. That can come from either party or even another party

Malthusian

The trouble with neo-Malthusians is that where economists see two smoothly intersecting lines on a graph they see a cliff-edge. One day available resources exceed population demand and everything is blissful. The next day population demands exceed available resources and everything is famine, war and death. As soon as the two lines on the graph (the arithmetic one of resources and the exponential one of demand) go past each other the Four Horseman are unleashed upon the world.

Economics does not work like that, it is much more boring and gradual. If oil (for example) does indeed start to run out the result will not be disaster but adaptation. Some businesses will use alternative power sources. Some people may choose to drive less and live closer to work. Previously unviable oil wells will now be worth opening and there will be an increased incentive to research cheaper forms of energy. Any changes will be gradual and not attributable to the lack of oil alone.

The neo-Malthusian assertion is that we should cross these bridges before we come to them and stop using oil before there is any real reason to. Why? Their assertion that if we don't, the cliff-edge will come too quickly for humanity to cope flies in the face of the evidence of the last hundred years since the theory was first mooted.

TrickyTree83

Malthusian wrote: »

The trouble with neo-Malthusians is that where economists see two smoothly intersecting lines on a graph they see a cliff-edge. One day available resources exceed population demand and everything is blissful. The next day population demands exceed available resources and everything is famine, war and death. As soon as the two lines on the graph (the arithmetic one of resources and the exponential one of demand) go past each other the Four Horseman are unleashed upon the world.

Economics does not work like that, it is much more boring and gradual. If oil (for example) does indeed start to run out the result will not be disaster but adaptation. Some businesses will use alternative power sources. Some people may choose to drive less and live closer to work. Previously unviable oil wells will now be worth opening and there will be an increased incentive to research cheaper forms of energy. Any changes will be gradual and not attributable to the lack of oil alone.

The neo-Malthusian assertion is that we should cross these bridges before we come to them and stop using oil before there is any real reason to. Why? Their assertion that if we don't, the cliff-edge will come too quickly for humanity to cope flies in the face of the evidence of the last hundred years since the theory was first mooted.

Yes, we'll adapt we have to in order to survive. All of the financial systems developed under this paradigm of ever increasing consumption (which are our current systems) will need to change dramatically.

I've not said that the world will end, that it will be armageddon and the sky will fall in. But the way we currently operate our economy (which is far from the definition of actual economy) must and eventually will change, and so will our financial systems. The ponzi scheme must end also.

Mistermeaner

so should we support corbyn then?

Malthusian

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Yes, we'll adapt we have to in order to survive. All of the financial systems developed under this paradigm of ever increasing consumption (which are our current systems) will need to change dramatically.

I've not said that the world will end, that it will be armageddon and the sky will fall in. But the way we currently operate our economy (which is far from the definition of actual economy) must and eventually will change, and so will our financial systems.

How? What exactly are you proposing?

Malthus at least had the courage of his convictions to propose some solutions to the problem he'd hypothesised. (Discouraging the poor from breeding and ending what we would call welfare benefits.) [This being the Internet I should probably re-iterate that my username is ironic...]

Mistermeaner

Malthusian wrote: »

(Discouraging the poor from breeding and ending what we would call welfare benefits.)

i'D GO WITH THAT

TrickyTree83

Malthusian wrote: »

How? What exactly are you proposing?

Malthus at least had the courage of his convictions to propose some solutions to the problem he'd hypothesised. (Discouraging the poor from breeding and ending what we would call welfare benefits.) [This being the Internet I should probably re-iterate that my username is ironic...]

Why is it for me to propose solutoins to these problems?

Believing in the logic and mathematics behind such a problem does not mean they do not exist simply because I personally don't have a solution to it.

For what it's worth I think if something such as zero point energy or perpetual over-unity energy production could be achieved we may be able to achieve constant growth ad infinitum (eventually colonising other planetary bodies). Since abundant energy would in turn lead to de-salinisation at near zero cost. Abdundant fresh water leads to irrigated land and the terraforming of desert lands to produce abundant food whilst also eliminating most production costs. Driving up quality of produce and stimulating invention which is not driven by profit but by its enhancement of the situation of our species, our environment and that of the natural world around us.

That would be a starter for 10. Solve the energy problem and we'll solve most other problems with relative ease.

However since these ideas are theoretical at best and currently don't exist, if they do I'm not aware of them and they're not comercially available, then I can only look at what we do have available to us right now. Which leads me to conclude that our current systems will inevitably fail. When, I don't know, could we realise too late before great disaster unfolds - quite possibly.

.string.

Malthusian wrote: »

How? What exactly are you proposing?

Malthus at least had the courage of his convictions to propose some solutions to the problem he'd hypothesised. (Discouraging the poor from breeding and ending what we would call welfare benefits.) [This being the Internet I should probably re-iterate that my username is ironic...]

He's saying that if you have your head in the sand it's all right to take it out slowly, and meanwhile you may learn to breath the stuff.