Exponential grow can never stop... ...LOL.
--and yet there are so many on the left that think Malthus was right...
Posted on 04/27/2016 5:32:36 AM PDT by expat_panama
Let's look at the reality of the situation. Right now the US is one of the greatest countries in terms of bio-medical research and advances in software. If the Slimes is correct and robotics/automation (the differences is the volume of similar operations) will replace many “manufacturing jobs” then what this country needs to do is to manufacture the things that do the manufacturing robotically. We also need to manufacture the medical devices and medicines that the world will need. That will give us manufacturing jobs that will be in demand across all countries.
We can't go back to car, railroad and steel manufacturing as the basis of our manufacturing jobs, but we can look to advanced technology, whether military, aerospace, medical, or computer/robotic as a huge source of future jobs. We just need to modify government policies to encourage the R&D and necessary manufacturing investment. But the NYSlimes doesn't like such changes in tax policy.
Exponential grow can never stop... ...LOL.
--and yet there are so many on the left that think Malthus was right...
it is my dream that once the power monopolies are broken up like the old ones were with changing tech, the new paradigm will include an exploration and development model involving space exploration and development. Get us expanding off this rock...
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
Just because a bunch of left people think Malthus will ultimately be proven right, does not mean that Malthus was wrong, nor that leftists are correct.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Years ago, a rare individual, an “economics historian”, made an astounding discovery unlike any other known principle in economics. He refused to believe it, and spent the next 20 years trying to prove it wrong, but he was unable to.
The discovery was of a 100% correlation in economics, that applied throughout human history, location indifferent.
When he finally published his findings, his book was mostly references and footnotes, and so arcane in character that only serious economists could wade through it. Worth the effort, because he figured it would upend both economics and history.
Simply put, he had discovered a 100% correlation between mining and economic prosperity in a nation, kingdom, empire, any other form of government, or economic block.
That is, as a nation (etc.) mines, it prospers. The more it mines, the more it prospers. If it mines less, its economy is in decline, and when it discontinues mining *for any reason*, the nation nears collapse or collapses.
Please post the name of this “Economics historian” and where his or her or its writings can be found.
People are attacking Trump because of his jobs language/tariff talk. If you look at his tax reform, and if the his business tax proposals do pass, that will motivate companies to remain in the US and tariffs would therefore would not be proposed.
Now for Trump's trade deals, I have no clue what would happen. For me personally, I do not trust the Yahoos in DC to negotiate a deal that would be “fair” not to mention “free” (humor) to the people of the US? Why, because Obama is a rabid radical ideologue and he has placed many rabid left wingers in the government.
I wish. It was at least 20-30 years ago, in a book review in an academic journal, and I’ve looked for it since, but only as a reference, since my interests are in mining, not economics.
A lot of people think that's true, and while you have not clearly said if you're one you seem to hint that you are. So let's look at Malthusian economics; this is what most people understand it to be:
Malthusian. : of or relating to the theories of T. R. Malthus, which state that population tends to increase faster, at a geometrical ratio, than the means of subsistence, which increases at an arithmetical ratio, and that this will result in an inadequate supply of the goods supporting life unless war, famine, or disease reduces the population or the increase of population is checked.
The reason most folks don't buy it is because it doesn't happen in real life. First, the supply of goods supporting life (wealth) doubles every 30 years along with real income. Second, populations do not grow continuously at an exponential rate. Yeah, we can see it happen for limited times in special environments but they tend to fill whatever niche they like and settle in. Most people do not --can not-- have and raise new kids all day long. They may start out that way in chaotic situations but historically humans tend to stablilize and birthrates tend to level off as couples 'wait till they're ready'.
But let's say they don't.
Right now the world population is growing at 1.13% per year; that means it doubles every 54 years and that in a thousand years every single man. woman, and child will only have an acre of land each. Assuming no space exploration, ocean habitats, cities, and continued exponential population growth --and that last one's just crazy.
If it were true then just 50,000 years ago the first homo sapiens would have appeared and we know that's not true, that we've been around say, five or ten times that long.
Honestly, me neither. Frankly my bet is that Trump doesn't either. What I do expect (imho) is that the next administration's policies will be a 'yuge' change for the better.
That fits in w/ what a lot of folks swear by, this notion that human well-being is limited by available natural resources. I personally don't buy it but if it were true then we'd be fine, given the fact that mining tech has far out-paced population growth --we can see how for centuries the prices mined commodities has been falling.
Hockey stick graph.
Please forgive, some how in the slowness of my olden age the context seems to be hidden from me. I'm familiar w/ both Malthus and the AGW HS graph, is there chance u cud expand what u meant some?
The trouble with these is that the don't create wealth. Education makes people employable. Healthcare restores people to health so they can work. However, neither of them adds to the total wealth available. On the contrary, they require wealth to be created elsewhere to pay teachers and doctors. As for clean energy, without subsidies, it can't exist. It, too, consumes wealth that must be created elsewhere to pay the subsidies.
Services may be an answer, but they must be worth enough to the wealth-creators that they are willing to pay for them.
Usually when it comes to business we use terms like 'market price' or 'net worth' because words like wealth and value too often get commandeered by cultists. So even though these are supposed to be econ threads we still get folks who say 'true wealth' is their own special meditations and others say its like, their dog maybe, so if you really want to say 'true wealth' is whatever comes out of certain factories that you've blessed then good for you.
It'd be easy to gripe that T's way short on policy specifics but hey, they all are and not only that but it's got to be that way. There's just no way to know what tomorrow brings but today what we can look at is attitudes.
Trump's are better than Mrs. Clinton's.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech
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.