Brian and Forum:
Booms in populations and economies foster declines whose slopes are roughly
proportional to the sum of the amplitudes above the equilibrium envelope of
past periods when booms and busts were not perceptible. In other words, the
longer the ride on the gravy train, the more the steam and speed, and the
noisier the crash. When the Iron Triangle is a the controls, they think they
can reduce the mass enough to come to an easy arrival at the station of
their choice by throwing the crew off the train . . . I'd better stop, I
feel a fit coming on.
WT
PS: I quit economics (was drummed out) because of such heresy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Czech, Brian" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMIC growth, population and a couple of stories
These are some canny and insightful observations being posted about
economic growth and population growth. I only want to address, and
briefly, Andy Park's aptly labeled "$700 billion question" about why the
wealthy nations remain so obsessed with economic growth. Two quick points
about that:
1) Surely it is partly due to the fact that scientists, including
ecologists represented by professional, scientifically oriented societies,
have left this topic in the hands of conventional economists - who are
famous for not acknowledging limits to growth - for so long.
2) There is an "iron triangle," as they'd say in political science,
of corporations, politicians whose campaigns are largely financed by
corporations, and neoclassical economists surrounding and occupying the
economic policy arena. The research of academic economists is often
funded by corporations and the professional, practicing economists are
appointed by politicians to the economic policy development posts (e.g. in
the Fed, Council of Economic Advisors, and Department of Commerce). The
three sides of this triangle benefit greatly from economic growth, while
much of the rest of society (and of course the environment) suffers as a
result of the same economic growth. Read more about this iron triangle in
an article that helped motivate The Wildlife Society to take a position on
economic growth:
http://steadystate.org/files/The_Iron_Triangle.pdf
<http://steadystate.org/files/The_Iron_Triangle.pdf>
Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
Andrew Park
Sent: Tue 2008-12-16 21:21
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMIC growth, population and a couple of stories
Hi again,
Sure, growing populations demand that economies grow. Either that, or
the population will exist in a world of diminishing per capita
resources.
But wait! Many economies in Europe continue to grow even though their
population is stagnating. Further, they continue to be obsessed with
economic growth, and currently, the lack of it. Why? That is the
$700 billion question. The answer, which appears only to be dimly
perceived even by professional economists, lies in the nature of
modern (i.e. post 1820) economies. The economic multiplier, whereby a
dollar spent ends up generating more than a dollar in additional
revenue, can work in reverse. i.e a dollar not spent can cause more
than a dollar of deflation. Technology and productivity gains
produced by technology demand further gorwth in consumption.
These factors do not proviude a complete answer for why economies have
to grow or collapse, but the vast literature on economic growth
appears ot be silent on the subject. We can say, however, that
populatinon is only one factor in the growth conundrum.
My previous question had to do not with the incentives that lie behind
growth, but in the mechanics of growth that produce this catch 22 of
growth or collapse.
As to the question of cultural imperatives behind population growth,
here are two short stories.
[1] - I go into a bar in tanzania, and get engaged in the usual
conversation, why aren't you married; What, you have no children?".
"So, how many kids do you have", I ask the guy at the bar. "Ten".
"Wow, that's a lot of kids". "Yes, and I must have more". "But don't
they cost a lot to keep fed and clothed?" "Why yes, they do, but I
have ot have many children, becasue otherwise, how can I come here and
drink beer?" "Beer?!!" "Yes, when I come here to see my friends, how
could I hold up my head and drink beer without having may children".
[2] - I am in a pickup truck on a dirt road in Mexico. I engage the
lady passenger in conversation. "So, signora, are you married".
"Yes". "Kids?" "Yes, I have five." "Five, wow; that must be quite a
handfull?" "Oh no, I would like to have more?" "You'd like more; how
come?" "Why, to be more happy of course!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Best,
Andy
Quoting "Ganter, Philip" <[email protected]>:
To All,
The recent posts on a steady-state economy and economic growth have
lost focus on the ecological underpinnings of any macroeconomic
model. Even if one uses a model that postulates an infinite
universe of material resource (accomplished deus ex machina by
substitution and the genie of technology), one must still account
for population size. Steady-state economy is obviously not possible
without steady-state population size unless we are are willing to
condemn future generations to ever-sinking living standards. Andy
Park wonders why we have to grow. Population, population,
population. This is so without considering such evils as worldwide
income disparity (and consequent ecological footprint disparity),
which is a significant driver on growth. If you narrow your focus
on the US, which is reasonable given that the ESA is based in
America, and that the US has a monstrous per-capita footprint and a
growing population, one still has to account for growth (even if
migration is a driver on the growth rate) when promoting a shift to
a steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting human
population size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of
freedom, and our religious beliefs but that does not justify
ignoring the problem. The history of attempts to affect population
growth rate is full of successes, failures, and cautionary examples
of bureaucratic tyranny. We might find it easier to promote a
steady-state economy if we also recommended policies consistent with
our values that promoted a steady-state population size.
Phil Ganter
Biology Department
Tennessee State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1855 - Release Date: 12/18/2008
10:16 AM
