DeafScribe (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} deafscribe) wrote,@ 2008-01-13 01:38:00 |
|
Boom & Bust
The current issue of Free Inquiry magazine has an interesting editorial by Tom Flynn that describes parallels between Ponzi schemes and national economies. Both depend on growth; both begin falling apart when growth slows, ceases or reverses.
Problem is, world population continues to grow, and we are already approaching hard limits on essential supplies like fresh water, arable land, and energy. This growth also extracts a price in terms of environmental damage, species extinction, and more frequent conflict over dwindling resources.
Growth has always been a constant in economic planning, a given, and there's no reason it wouldn't be - it's only been during the past 50 years that we've truly begun to appreciate how much an impact population growth is having on the planet.
Flynn wonders if it's possible to maintain our current standard of living without growth. Can we devise a sustainable, steady-state economy that is flexible enough to withstand fluctuations in available resources?
More to the point, I think - can a steady-state economy compete effectively when surrounded by growth economies?
The answer is obvious - of course not. Growth economies will be lined up for first shot at essential resources, through political power, purchasing power, or military power. The steady-state economy will be at the back of that line.
Which leads to two possibilities - either the competing growth economies are eliminated by forging them all together in a single world economy, or the familiar boom-bust cycle of growth economies will continue until resources are exhausted.
As long as our economic thinking is dominated by a competitive model, growth will prevail and resources will dwindle. A steady-state economy will require a large-scale cooperative model - and we haven't developed one that works yet.
The current issue of Free Inquiry magazine has an interesting editorial by Tom Flynn that describes parallels between Ponzi schemes and national economies. Both depend on growth; both begin falling apart when growth slows, ceases or reverses.
Problem is, world population continues to grow, and we are already approaching hard limits on essential supplies like fresh water, arable land, and energy. This growth also extracts a price in terms of environmental damage, species extinction, and more frequent conflict over dwindling resources.
Growth has always been a constant in economic planning, a given, and there's no reason it wouldn't be - it's only been during the past 50 years that we've truly begun to appreciate how much an impact population growth is having on the planet.
Flynn wonders if it's possible to maintain our current standard of living without growth. Can we devise a sustainable, steady-state economy that is flexible enough to withstand fluctuations in available resources?
More to the point, I think - can a steady-state economy compete effectively when surrounded by growth economies?
The answer is obvious - of course not. Growth economies will be lined up for first shot at essential resources, through political power, purchasing power, or military power. The steady-state economy will be at the back of that line.
Which leads to two possibilities - either the competing growth economies are eliminated by forging them all together in a single world economy, or the familiar boom-bust cycle of growth economies will continue until resources are exhausted.
As long as our economic thinking is dominated by a competitive model, growth will prevail and resources will dwindle. A steady-state economy will require a large-scale cooperative model - and we haven't developed one that works yet.
