Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dan6 who wrote (94179)	9/1/2012 4:39:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 219750

Dan, there are a few falsehoods there. <The problem with financial growth is that it cannot grow indefinitely. Its ultimate limit is that the Earth is only so big. Certainly if growth is based on consumption (which, given, not all growth is) there is only so much to consume. /i>> That's the old "We're running out of oil argument". But the truth is that as Sheik Yamani pointed out, the stone age didn't end for a lack of stones and the oil age won't end because we run out of oil. Economics is about trading value between individuals who want what other people do. Unending economic development doesn't mean 100 billion people roaring around in dirty great gas guzzling SUVs. What people want is increasingly abstract. Nowadays, people buy movie watching, music listening, sports watching, digital content of one sort and another, fine wines rather than bulk plonk, holistic ethereal psychic retreats, healing massage, holidays, tennis memberships and what have you. Material possessions requiring lots of iron and oil are not the only economic interests people have. There does not seem to be an upper limit to possible economic activity yet. As robots and Cyberspace swing into gear, a lot more will be able to be done. <Similarly, people who claim there is no (people) population problem fail to acknowledge the same thing. Eventually, there will not be enough land for everyone to stand on. People will be stacked on top of each other. This, at the least, will make the logistics of defecation unpleasant for those living in the second tier. > There is no people population explosion problem. Earth could take 100 billion people easily enough. Even if we were stacked 100 on top of each other, we still wouldn't need to defecate on each other. There are buildings 100 stories high and toilets are often above each other for efficiency of pipework. 100 people at a time, directly over each other, could defecate without knowing others are passing motions simultaneously. But it's not going to come to that. Peak People is going to be in 2037 [or sooner if H5N1 or similar goes critical]. To increase economic activity doesn't require more people. The same number of people could consume more. For example I could consume 3 x $1000 bottles of wine a week instead of 1 x $10 bottle of plonk. I could also get a new car every 3 years instead of using my 14 year old Camry which works fine. The old cars could be recycled if there's a shortage of materials, which there isn't. <As far as the issue of debt, the larger point made is not how to not pay back debts owed, but how to create an economic system that doesn't create debt, period. > What's the problem with debt? Debit is just somebody saying to their neighbour, "Hey, can I borrow your tractor to plough my field please? Mine i out of service and needs an overhaul which they can't do until the crops are finished. I'll return the favour when yours needs servicing and I'll throw in a free tank of fuel." The neighbour, being neighbourly, and not realizing a government department should clip the ticket to redistribute the wealth, agrees to the loan. That's all debt is. Favours done and repaid, with interest. Because there is a risk that such favours will never be repaid because people die and all sorts of things go wrong with promises, a risk payment is needed and that is called interest. I have no idea why you think that there is anything wrong with debt. Debt is just people with assets they don't need right now lending them to people who do need them right now and who are willing to pay for having that immediate need satisfied. For example, I wanted to buy a house for my family to live in but didn't have enough money. So I borrowed some from a bank and agreed to pay some interest. I don't see why you think that's a bad thing. The bank liked it, their depositor liked it, I liked it, my family liked it. Heck, even the government liked it because they clipped the ticket, taking a third of the interest payment and a third of the income of the bank employees. The government also took a third of my income which I had to earn to pay the interest. As is obvious, the main problem with such loans is the government bludgers. So the magician's trick [me being the magician] was to earn enough money to pay the government bludgers as well as the interest on the loan. I did it, easily. Perhaps you misunderstand debt or something. Anyway, you should now be able to see that there's nothing wrong with debt and it doesn't require people to poop on each other, or have a trillion people on Earth, or run out of iron, aluminium or oil. The main problem is government bludgers. Get rid of them and life would be easier all around, by a long way. Mqurice