Skip to comments.Limits to Growth - At Our Doorstep, But Not Recognized
Posted on 02/06/2014 6:04:49 PM PST by Lorianne
How long can economic growth continue in a finite world? This is the question the 1972 book The Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows and others sought to answer. The computer models that the team of researchers produced strongly suggested that the world economy would collapse sometime in the first half of the 21st century.
I have been researching what the real situation is with respect to resource limits since 2005. The conclusion I am reaching is that the team of 1972 researchers were indeed correct. In fact, the promised collapse is practically right around the corner, beginning in the next year or two. In fact, many aspects of the collapse appear already to be taking place, such as the 2008-2009 Great Recession and the collapse of the economies of smaller countries such as Greece and Spain. How could collapse be so close, with virtually no warning to the population?
To explain the situation, I will first explain why we are reaching Limits to Growth in the near term. I will then provide a list of nine reasons why the near-term crisis has been overlooked.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
I thought Malthus wad dead. I guess a few of his disciples somehow survived the end of all things.
We won't run out of room, resources, or energy anytime soon. The only thing in short supply is common sense.
So our economy gets kicked in the nuts by President Income Inequality and the limits to growth nonsense gets resurrected from the 70s. Next we’ll be wearing platform shoes and polyester.
Not if there is a polyester shortage
Bullcrap. The only limits are those put on us by communist-envirowackos.
It’s an interesting read, surprisingly.
The effect he is obviously talking ‘around’ is government intervention: regulation, debt, mis-subsidization.
I’m not claiming he realizes that’s what he’s talking about...
Bureaucracy will kill us all. I’m convinced it’s what killed civilizations like the Aztecs amd other ‘lost’ civilizations.
There really are limits to growth and they trace primarily to government growth and growth of market warping regulation and taxation, to control by political actors who deny the laws of economics. In an actual free market economy there will always be innovation that will substitute for and replace declining or failing structures and resources. Rulers prefer that there be nothing new and that they control all that is. New things may be out of their control so must be prevented.
Try reading the recent book, “Abundance,” instead of the dreary LTG nonsense.
Is debt abundant?
By 2050, Africa will add a 2nd billion and Asia will add a 5th billion. Total 9 billion
By 2100, Africa will add a 3rd and 4th billion. Total 11 billion
The article doesn’t talk about population
The article may have an element of truth mixed with an incorrect assignment of causation.
The article states that growth is being limited by hidden costs, i.e., the increased costs of obtaining energy and metals from poorer ores.
Note that there is no mention of the not so hidden growth of the US FedGov share of the GDP from 18% to 25%. That money is not available for either investment or for increased wages, and so it acts as a brake on economic growth.
Declining population, and as a result of that, a declining economy, for the next hundred years is getting more likely. In fact, most industrialized nation's births are already below replacement level, and the developing world is not far behind. At some point in the near future, the chief problem every country may face will be how to get the birth rate up.
This is hogwash. Capitalism thrives everyplace it’s introduced. It has flourished in America. It works in Europe even with a lot of binders thrown on it. It works all over.
Vietnam was going down the tubes til the Commies introduced “limited capitalist experiments” in the ‘90’s, then the economy took off. China has had great success with capitalism and is now surpassing the U.S. which has been burdened with OButthead. Even Cuba is now introducing capitalism on a very small scale since they don’t have an Obama in charge.
Did you read the article?
I didn’t read anything in there that was opposed to capitalism.
The article doesn’t talk about population. It discusses many other things but primarily focusses on lack of capital formation and over reliance on debt in its place.
But population is critical. It is the demand side of supply and demand. People need food, shelter, etc. and more people = more demand = more GDP. Less people = less demand = less GDP. Yet our current economic model can't allow declining population and declining GDP, because it is debt based. Our money is debt based money. How does a debt based money work in a shrinking economy? It just makes the debt more unpayable.
And I believe the most important thing is that once the collapse really gets started, it will be self fueling, because the population decline will cause a never ending depression, which will cause adults to not want to have children they can't afford and can't guarantee they will have a life even equal to their own, which lowers the population, and causes greater economic contraction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.