The end of growth?

[Winston001]

This post on another thread got me thinking:


We're heading unavoidably into a sharply resource-constrained world, which is going to kill off our ideas of abundance and progress. There's already not enough world to go around so that 9 billion people can live like us - when that constraint gets more obvious I think we'll be forced to do some of the uncomfortable thinking we currently have no appetite for.

I haven't researched the current thinking on economic growth but the standard view throughout my lifetime has been that each nation must grow its economy every year. That growth improves total wealth and the standard of living.

The problem is that now we are hitting the limits. Peak oil. Food prices rising. Water for irrigation and drinking is becoming more scarce. Desertification and salination are removing fertile soils. Fish stocks are disappearing.

Sooo....just thinking about NZ, do we really need to "grow" our economy in the normal sense?

[superman]

This post on another thread got me thinking:



I haven't researched the current thinking on economic growth but the standard view throughout my lifetime has been that each nation must grow its economy every year. That growth improves total wealth and the standard of living.

The problem is that now we are hitting the limits. Peak oil. Food prices rising. Water for irrigation and drinking is becoming more scarce. Desertification and salination are removing fertile soils. Fish stocks are disappearing.

Sooo....just thinking about NZ, do we really need to "grow" our economy in the normal sense?

It also relies on a growing population, which some people reckon will peak soon enough also. I read somewhere most western countries would have a population decrease if it wasn't for immigration.

NZ is lucky in that it has a very low population for our very productive and useful amount of land. I reckon in the next couple of decades food and water will become things to have wars over, so... really we should shove a load of money into defense. Or have an epic coalition with Australia. :yes:

[NighthawkNZ]

Sooo....just thinking about NZ, do we really need to "grow" our economy in the normal sense?

No... we become a resource based economy ... basically we look at the resourses available and then decide the best option to get it to the people the require it... (not wants but needs)

Problem it the world needs to be on the same path ... not just one country

[Usarka]

Time for an enlightenment period away from materialistic consumption, we can still have growth and wealth but we need to get away from choosing to throw our hard earned dollars on tvs, cars, stereos, clothes etc.

Imagine for example if everybody went out once a week to a concert, restaurant, theatre show, museum etc etc. The country would be buzzing.

At the moment we sit at home wearing trendy $150 t-shirts that cost $3 to make having spent the afternoon buying a new bread-pressure-rice-blender that's now sitting in the cupboard ulikely to get used, and knock back piss that we bought at the supermarket and watch reality TV all night on our 52 inch LCD thinking how wealthy we are.


PS - peak oil: someone on nat radio the other day suggested oil should be subsidised so we use the remaining stuff up quicker, thereby creating immediate incentive to develop a sustainable alternative. Top thinking that.

[Big Dave]

Time for an enlightenment period away from materialistic consumption,

Have you banged your head again?

[superman]

Imagine for example if everybody went out once a week to a concert, restaurant, theatre show, museum etc etc. The country would be buzzing.

Thinking along such lines I shall just be heading off to listen to a professional quartet at the University of Auckland. It shall be grand. I do try to bring along people as often as possible, problem is people my age are... not so inclined usually. Especially the chickadees who want their gangster shiz to booty shake to, or some Lady Gaga... :facepalm: Honestly the youth are so hopeless. :innocent:

[Oblivion]

Thinking along such lines I shall just be heading off to listen to a professional quartet at the University of Auckland. It shall be grand. I do try to bring along people as often as possible, problem is people my age are... not so inclined usually. Especially the chickadees who want their gangster shiz to booty shake to, or some Lady Gaga... :facepalm: Honestly the youth are so hopeless. :innocent:

The old people aren't much better in the same sense now are they?

[slofox]

Honestly the youth are so hopeless. :innocent:

They always are - and have been forever. Check out ancient Greek stuff - many moans about the " youth of today..."

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

[Oblivion]

They always are - and have been forever. Check out ancient Greek stuff - many moans about the " youth of today..."

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Like Parents like children. Unless they are taught otherwise.

[scumdog]

They always are - and have been forever. Check out ancient Greek stuff - many moans about the " youth of today..."

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Hmm...judging by that quote I'm living in ancient Greece...:blink:

[FJRider]

Time for an enlightenment period away from materialistic consumption, we can still have growth and wealth but we need to get away from choosing to throw our hard earned dollars on tvs, cars, stereos, clothes etc.

But thats what makes free countries ... so dam .. well ... expensive ...

[slofox]

"There is nothing new in this world"

[oldrider]

Every generation has said the same things and have had the same misgivings about the past while expressing the same fears about the future!

Funny thing is that despite all the negatives that we worry about, the positives still carry us forward.

It's a bit like the share market, where current trends are usually a bit erratic but the difference between the beginning and the end signify enormous progress or growth!

The current generation will always find a way, develop alternative's and ... as in the past, simply move onwards and upwards with life! :yes:

The only alternative is to cease to exist, in which case ... :whocares:

[mashman]

No... we become a resource based economy ... basically we look at the resourses available and then decide the best option to get it to the people the require it... (not wants but needs)

Problem it the world needs to be on the same path ... not just one country

I agree with the Resource Based Economy, it's the only way it'll work, if at all. Although you need to cater for the wants in the short-term, or risk the trauma of cunsumerist withdrawal :blink:

The world can't, well, it's highly improbable that the world can do this as one, as it hasn't been tried and tested. The same can be said for every single thing that has happened on this planet. Someone has ALWAYS has to go first.

[MSTRS]

Can someone explain this 'resource economy'?
My take on it is that oil/coal/minerals for example are resources. Finite, though. And we are entering that phase when the resource runs out.
A resource is only effective longterm, if it is replenishable, surely? And any resource that is not...utilising it to achieve growth simply speeds up it's demise.

[schrodingers cat]

As long as people allow themselves to be saddled under a banking system that employs fractional reserve banking the requirement will be for growth.

Theft comes in many forms

[mashman]

Can someone explain this 'resource economy'?
My take on it is that oil/coal/minerals for example are resources. Finite, though. And we are entering that phase when the resource runs out.
A resource is only effective longterm, if it is replenishable, surely? And any resource that is not...utilising it to achieve growth simply speeds up it's demise.

The way I look at it. A Resource Based Economy is the use of people and resources in a logistic self sustaining manner. One that has huge societal benefits imho, as it doesn't require a financial system.

This is from the originator of the term (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy)

[JimO]

i dont agree with peak oil, there will be huge oil reserves that will be known about and untapped, its all about the $$$$

[scumdog]

Can someone explain this 'resource economy'?
My take on it is that oil/coal/minerals for example are resources. Finite, though. And we are entering that phase when the resource runs out.
A resource is only effective longterm, if it is replenishable, surely? And any resource that is not...utilising it to achieve growth simply speeds up it's demise.

Grazing pastures are a resource.

And renewable.

[racefactory]

I agree with the resource based economy. However, I think humans in their current stage of evolution are not capable of the solidarity needed to harness the benefits of such ideas. There will surely be a human cataclysm before then.

Also, one of the delusions today is that increased GDP and growth equates to increased well-being. In actuality, it equates to increased inefficiency and this is detrimental to health and living standards when the environment is a factor.

[mashman]

Grazing pastures are a resource.

And renewable.

until they're over farmed, by poisoning them to over produce.

[rainman]

This post on another thread got me thinking:


Why thank you, we aim to please.


At the moment we sit at home wearing trendy $150 t-shirts that cost $3 to make having spent the afternoon buying a new bread-pressure-rice-blender that's now sitting in the cupboard ulikely to get used, and knock back piss that we bought at the supermarket and watch reality TV all night on our 52 inch LCD thinking how wealthy we are.

Now that is brilliance. Bling to you.


i dont agree with peak oil, there will be huge oil reserves that will be known about and untapped, its all about the $$$$

Peak oil isn't the end of oil, it's the end of cheap oil. So on the basis of your post, sounds like you do agree with it.


Grazing pastures are a resource.

And renewable.

Indeed, but the whole system around them isn't. How sustainable is the NZ dairy industry if oil's $200 a barrel, or just plain unavailable at any cost in the quantities we're used to? Or if our customer countries are in deep(er) financial doo doo?

[onearmedbandit]

My wish? To be around in say 300yrs time attending a history lesson covering the 'modern dark-age' of 1970-2***.

[Big Dave]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z0GFRcFm-aY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Winston001]

The way I look at it. A Resource Based Economy is the use of people and resources in a logistic self sustaining manner. One that has huge societal benefits imho, as it doesn't require a financial system.

This is from the originator of the term (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy)

I do agree there are merits in the Resource Based Economy ideas but they need work. That link to the Venus Project reveals some very fuzzy thinking and major warning bells rang when I immediately found conspiracy thinking:

"We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them."

Spare me days. :facepalm:

[mashman]

I do agree there are merits in the Resource Based Economy ideas but they need work. That link to the Venus Project reveals some very fuzzy thinking and major warning bells rang when I immediately found conspiracy thinking:

"We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them."

Spare me days. :facepalm:

True, it needs work because we're nowhere near it and they do not outline a path to get there. It is a view of a future that has been arrived at.

The "conspiracy" is real enough, shame it turned you off... although I understand why. You choose to believe it or you don't.

When I look at the world, I see the fingerprints of political and corporate bullshit everywhere. So I believe it. And having read about the guy who stated it, he has an experience of the world that next to none of us have... why wouldn't I believe him?

[LBD]

An interesting quote made by a mining engineer I work with regardin NZ mineral resorces...

New Zealand is 5th in the world measured in mineral wealth per head of population....but 25th in the world measured minerals mined per head of population.

Maybe its time we considered exploiting some of our mineral wealth...in an responsibly environmentally sensitive manner without taking environmental issues to the extreme as we do at present.

[NighthawkNZ]

I do agree there are merits in the Resource Based Economy ideas but they need work. That link to the Venus Project reveals some very fuzzy thinking and major warning bells rang when I immediately found conspiracy thinking:

"We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them."

Spare me days. :facepalm:

Its not actually a conspiracy as such... Helen Clarke is also a major player and been wanting the World Government for sometime and has been pushing for it for some time...The conspiracy side you speak of is what they want to do after they gain complete control... like micro chipping every one and you just become a worker drone (you are halfway there already when you think about it) they also want to cull the population etc... which is why we never really had peace on Earth, war is a good way to keep population under control. but its just a conspiracy.

At the end of the day. large corpartions are already at the helm the diciat to goverments already... its all about the dollar... for the love of money is... (well you know the rest). Roosevelt and previous presidents warned of this... the conspiracy is that is why Kennedy was assinated etc, because wasn't playing ball and was being a real preseident.

The UN is the front for it the start of the world government, the world bank is well their bank and each country pays however millions of dollars a year to be part of it... the system is already in place... they just don't have complete control yet.

But its all only a conspiracy theory... if you want to bring in religion it was and has been all predicted in the the book of revolations... but that is just an old religious prophocey... If you want to start joining the dots around you and actually looking... well things are not as they seem... but then well thats just being nuts... some accidents are not just accidents some things are well not what they first seem to be.


heck most of the movies you watch on TV and on the silver a screen are the same story from star wars to Lord of the Rings, heck even the matrix, the dark side wanting power over all etc... then again they are just movies right, and not warnings from hollywood insiders...

Or is it???

The easiest way is to follow the money... if you do that like a lot of conspiracy thorist have well it does change what you see, and you do see the viel of cover being lifted... either way people have to start joing the dots of things that should not corosponed to each other (but yet they do), because they usually do... normal story governments flash with one hand and hide slide with the other...

Freedoms are slowly being stripped in the name of security. Cost of living are going through the roof oil prices tax this and that... global warming (sorry Climate change) heck even throw in the mix those scare munggering 2012 actists etc is it any wonder why there is so much chaos in the world today and it is a wonder we haven't already pushed the big red button...

but then again its not really happening and the governments are there for the good of the people not there own selfish rights.... mmmmm tui

[oneofsix]

Its not actually a conspiracy as such... Helen Clarke is also a major player and been wanting the World Government for sometime and has been pushing for it for some time...The conspiracy side you speak of is what they want to do after they gain complete control... like micro chipping every one and you just become a worker drone (you are halfway there already when you think about it) they also want to cull the population etc... which is why we never really had peace on Earth, war is a good way to keep population under control. but its just a conspiracy.

At the end of the day. large corpartions are already at the helm the diciat to goverments already... its all about the dollar... for the love of money is... (well you know the rest). Roosevelt and previous presidents warned of this... the conspiracy is that is why Kennedy was assinated etc, because wasn't playing ball and was being a real preseident.

The UN is the front for it the start of the world government, the world bank is well their bank and each country pays however millions of dollars a year to be part of it... the system is already in place... they just don't have complete control yet.

But its all only a conspiracy theory... if you want to bring in religion it was and has been all predicted in the the book of revolations... but that is just an old religious prophocey... If you want to start joining the dots around you and actually looking... well things are not as they seem... but then well thats just being nuts... some accidents are not just accidents some things are well not what they first seem to be.

The easiest way is to follow the money...

Or is it???

heck most of the movies you watch on TV and on the silver a screen are the same story from star wars to Lord of the Rings the dark side wanting power over all etc... then again the are just movies right and not warnings...

Movies, Revelations and other religious text, books (1984 etc), history, are all studies in the nature of the people who crave power. It's not a conspiracy in that those who are willing to work that hard and sacrifice that much to get to those positions believe they are therefore special and deserving and the rest of us are just fodder to feed their ambitions. The UN was probably set up to bring about world peace etc but wouldn't take much for ambitious people with domination desires to subvert. Not a conspiracy, just individuals and groups working to the same aim incidentally assisting each other to bring the world back to a version of serfdom, and the rest of us accidentally frustrating their desires.

[scissorhands]

After a good cutting back nearly all trees with good roots will flourish once again.

Revolution! Off with their heads! Shonky first!

[MSTRS]

Grazing pastures are a resource.

And renewable.

Oh goody! We can all eat grass.
The world doesn't want our meat. 40-odd years of Britain 'turning it's back on us in the colonies', little headway in finding other markets that will take all/more than we produce, with the subsequent drop in sheep numbers from some 70M to around 40M, is proof enough of that.

[NighthawkNZ]

Movies, Revelations and other religious text, books (1984 etc), history, are all studies in the nature of the people who crave power. It's not a conspiracy in that those who are willing to work that hard and sacrifice that much to get to those positions believe they are therefore special and deserving and the rest of us are just fodder to feed their ambitions. The UN was probably set up to bring about world peace etc but wouldn't take much for ambitious people with domination desires to subvert. Not a conspiracy, just individuals and groups working to the same aim incidentally assisting each other to bring the world back to a version of serfdom, and the rest of us accidentally frustrating their desires.


sounds about right to me...

[avgas]

This post on another thread got me thinking:
I haven't researched the current thinking on economic growth but the standard view throughout my lifetime has been that each nation must grow its economy every year. That growth improves total wealth and the standard of living.
The problem is that now we are hitting the limits. Peak oil. Food prices rising. Water for irrigation and drinking is becoming more scarce. Desertification and salination are removing fertile soils. Fish stocks are disappearing.
Sooo....just thinking about NZ, do we really need to "grow" our economy in the normal sense?
Errrr we do export more than physical/tangible things........you seem to missing this rather large element out of your economy.
We don't need to grow our economy, no one NEEDS to.
It is a want.

[mashman]

Errrr we do export more than physical/tangible things........you seem to missing this rather large element out of your economy.
We don't need to grow our economy, no one NEEDS to.
It is a want.

doesn't the global "marketplace" force the need for growth in every country?

[avgas]

doesn't the global "marketplace" force the need for growth in every country?
If you wish to partake, yes.
If not, nope.
It is most humbling to see a village in China or elsewhere where they don't give a fuck what happens 50km away from their village.

[racefactory]

Errrr we do export more than physical/tangible things........you seem to missing this rather large element out of your economy.
We don't need to grow our economy, no one NEEDS to.
It is a want.

Mashman is right. it's not a want, it's actually a requirement with this economic paradigm. the amount borrowed in any year has to be at least equal to the amount being paid to reduce old loans plus the banks retained earnings. assuming that the banks are not distributing all their profits, this means that the amount borrowed has to grow year by year but since a steadily increasing amount of borrowing cannot be supported by a stationary or declining economy, this means that the economy has to grow too to prevent the level of indebtedness rising continually in relation to national income.

[oneofsix]

Mashman is right. it's not a want, it's actually a requirement. the amount borrowed in any year has to be at least equal to the amount being paid to reduce old loans plus the banks retained earnings. assuming that the banks are not distributing all their profits, this means that the amount borrowed has to grow year by year. But since a steadily increasing amount of borrowing cannot be supported by a stationary or declining economy, this means that the economy has to grow too to prevent the level of indebtedness rising continually in relation to national income.

and so endif the lesson on capitalism :corn:

[mashman]

Mashman is right. it's not a want, it's actually a requirement with this economic paradigm. the amount borrowed in any year has to be at least equal to the amount being paid to reduce old loans plus the banks retained earnings. assuming that the banks are not distributing all their profits, this means that the amount borrowed has to grow year by year. but since a steadily increasing amount of borrowing cannot be supported by a stationary or declining economy, this means that the economy has to grow too to prevent the level of indebtedness rising continually in relation to national income.

and the only way to break that cycle is to work smarter, together, almost the same as a village in China :)

[Banditbandit]

and so endif the lesson on capitalism :corn:

Not quite. The Marxist prediction for capitalism is frightening - it's all cyclic ... and simplified, it goes like this ...

As the western countries' cost of employment gets higher, companies will move their producton pants to countries where wages are lower and the cost of employment is lower - guaranteeing them better profits. We have seen this in New Zealand as clothing manufacture was moved to Fiji - China - Pakistan (and our call centres to pakistan, India) and in the US as car plants moved south of the border to Mexico.)

In these countries with new opportunities for employment, the workers will spend their excess money getting themselves and their children an education. With more wages the Governments will earn more taxes - meaning they can afford to improve the health and education systems as well as the country's infrastructure. The education then raises the cost of employment as people start to ask for higher wages ...

Meanwhile, in the frmer developed countries, the higher rates of unemployment mean fewer and fewer people will get an education .. and wages will go down, meaning a rise in poverty, people struggling, etc etc ... Governmetns will have less taxes and therefore less to spend on education, health, police - etc etc ...

Eventually, the countries which were once poor and had few industries, will become the developed countries, with good education, good health services and higher wages. Higher wages will mean less need for corruption and this will dwindle away. The once-developed countries will suffer from poverty, poor education ...

Then the large companies will realsie that they can get cheaper employment in the once-developed countries (such as New Zealand/US/Australia) and will move their production plants back to those countries, as wages will be chaeper than in the now-deveoped countries, such as Mexico, Fiji, Pakistan, China ...

And the cycle will continue ..

[NighthawkNZ]

I blame the Aliems ... then pesky darn Aliems

[oneofsix]

Not quite. The Marxist prediction for capitalism is frightening - it's all cyclic ... and simplified, it goes like this ...

As the western countries' cost of employment gets higher, companies will move their producton pants to countries where wages are lower and the cost of employment is lower - guaranteeing them better profits. We have seen this in New Zealand as clothing manufacture was moved to Fiji - China - Pakistan (and our call centres to pakistan, India) and in the US as car plants moved south of the border to Mexico.)

In these countries with new opportunities for employment, the workers will spend their excess money getting themselves and their children an education. With more wages the Governments will earn more taxes - meaning they can afford to improve the health and education systems as well as the country's infrastructure. The education then raises the cost of employment as people start to ask for higher wages ...

Meanwhile, in the frmer developed countries, the higher rates of unemployment mean fewer and fewer people will get an education .. and wages will go down, meaning a rise in poverty, people struggling, etc etc ... Governmetns will have less taxes and therefore less to spend on education, health, police - etc etc ...

Eventually, the countries which were once poor and had few industries, will become the developed countries, with good education, good health services and higher wages. Higher wages will mean less need for corruption and this will dwindle away. The once-developed countries will suffer from poverty, poor education ...

Then the large companies will realsie that they can get cheaper employment in the once-developed countries (such as New Zealand/US/Australia) and will move their production plants back to those countries, as wages will be chaeper than in the now-deveoped countries, such as Mexico, Fiji, Pakistan, China ...

And the cycle will continue ..

Teach me to be flippant :yes:
Actually Banditbandit's lesson is more the flip side that the spin doctors would prefer we didn't see. And as long as the money peoples and power brokers are multi-national they don't care which country they source their cheap labour from, but they do seem to need to control a reasonably wealthy country or two as their base of operations.
Oh well our own Prime minister has said where he thinks NZ is in the cycle. :facepalm:

[Winston001]

Its many years since I did economics so I'm a bit hazy on the details. I assume "growth" means making/selling a few more widgets than last year. The increased income allows you to buy more stuff, get a better bike etc.

Is zero growth impossible - or a problem? What if I make movies to sell to the world. This year the technology is better than last year so my latest epic is made in 10 months instead of 12. Plus the technology is smarter and faster thus cutting costs. My gross income remains the same but costs are less and the product better.

This happens in reality. Home appliances today use half the energy they did 30 years ago. We sell information over the net instead of trudging down to the Post Office.

[avgas]

Mashman is right. it's not a want, it's actually a requirement with this economic paradigm. the amount borrowed in any year has to be at least equal to the amount being paid to reduce old loans plus the banks retained earnings. assuming that the banks are not distributing all their profits, this means that the amount borrowed has to grow year by year but since a steadily increasing amount of borrowing cannot be supported by a stationary or declining economy, this means that the economy has to grow too to prevent the level of indebtedness rising continually in relation to national income.
That used to be the process in explaining growth. Most text books still refer to this.
China blew that all out of the water in 2006. They had no debt - so growth required by international economics was almost zero. Growth required due to population wants far exceeded international growth needs.
So be careful what you read in english....... as now the strongest information about successful growth in economic development are coming from India and China.

[avgas]

and so endif the lesson on capitalism :corn:
Exactly....... because capitalist counties own SOOO much of the international economy right now.........:bye:

[mashman]

Its many years since I did economics so I'm a bit hazy on the details. I assume "growth" means making/selling a few more widgets than last year. The increased income allows you to buy more stuff, get a better bike etc.

Is zero growth impossible - or a problem? What if I make movies to sell to the world. This year the technology is better than last year so my latest epic is made in 10 months instead of 12. Plus the technology is smarter and faster thus cutting costs. My gross income remains the same but costs are less and the product better.

This happens in reality. Home appliances today use half the energy they did 30 years ago. We sell information over the net instead of trudging down to the Post Office.


Only if you have enough money :)

No to both imho. You would need to price freeze everything that requires the use of money... inflation would have to be set to zero and never rise, component/commodity prices would have to freeze, the market that allows people to make money off of money would have to cease and many many more. You'd need a total global price freeze. That's my understanding, more than happy to be corrected as per usual. No wage rises anywhere. No more profit than you already have. No creation of new jobs if it means price rises.

The technology that you have, will have depreciated and there is always a premium price tag on new technology... so you'll probably end up paying more for the new stuff than you paid for the old stuff (commodity prices supply and demand), just to stay ahead of the game. Great if you have the spare cash and if it really matters to your consumers.

You may have more efficient home appliances, but to keep the profit margins up, the price of electricity has got to rise too, which all but negates the new appliance running costs... You use less, but pay more, go figure :).

Tis just my simple view of it and I'm not an economist oddly enough :).

[schrodingers cat]

resource based economy ...

Rather than go googling can you point me at any good links to bone up on such a thing

Cheers

[mashman]

Rather than go googling can you point me at any good links to bone up on such a thing

Cheers

You could try following the link in post 17 for one.

[scumdog]

Oh goody! We can all eat grass.
The world doesn't want our meat. 40-odd years of Britain 'turning it's back on us in the colonies', little headway in finding other markets that will take all/more than we produce, with the subsequent drop in sheep numbers from some 70M to around 40M, is proof enough of that.

Yeah, don't worry about any dairy industry...:whistle:

Troll.

[schrodingers cat]

You could try following the link in post 17 for one.

Thanks awfully.

It a bit too utopian don't you think?

Pity, be nice to see some genuine alternatives that would work with actual human nature

[mashman]

Thanks awfully.

It a bit too utopian don't you think?

Pity, be nice to see some genuine alternatives that would work with actual human nature

Sorry i didn't link to it... got called to the bathroom whre my youngest has had a follow through incident :sick:.

The human nature and Utopia of it all were semi discussed in the Rodney Hide thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/137357-Rodney-Hide-resigns/page6) :) lots of posts and unfortunately my opinion amongst it, well, my vision of how I see the Resource Based Economy... and Mental Trousers went Mental Trousers and started asking questions... I thought it was a pretty good "debate", so probably worth a laugh if nothing else :) and potentially some other views/input :).

[Winston001]

No wage rises anywhere.

The technology that you have, will have depreciated and there is always a premium price tag on new technology... so you'll probably end up paying more for the new stuff than you paid for the old stuff

Why would you need a wage rise if most of the stuff you want remains steady or drops in price? That is what has been happening with a huge amount of consumer goods and services since 1980. Tvs computers entertainment.

One of our problems is we actually have too much. So stuff is thrown out because it is a year old, not because it is worn, used up, or broken. A sustainable economy would have to change that.


Thanks awfully.

It a bit too utopian don't you think?

Pity, be nice to see some genuine alternatives that would work with actual human nature

Cloud cuckoo-land if the Venus Project is anything to go by. :bye:

However there will be other ideas for sustainable zero-growth economies, just haven't checked them out. It can't be impossible.

[mashman]

Why would you need a wage rise if most of the stuff you want remains steady or drops in price? That is what has been happening with a huge amount of consumer goods and services since 1980. Tvs computers entertainment.

One of our problems is we actually have too much. So stuff is thrown out because it is a year old, not because it is worn, used up, or broken. A sustainable economy would have to change that.


Oh and you'll probably have to stop having too many children, you'll also have to ask the banks to stop charging interest.

A Resource Based Economy would build things to last, and be expandable for the future. You may put a bigger board than you need into an appliance, but it could then be able to be upgraded on a component basis, and not need a full replacement. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.



Cloud cuckoo-land if the Venus Project is anything to go by. :bye:


I'm surprised that the Resource Based Economy took you that way, or was it the Venus Project that put you off? May I ask why?

[schrodingers cat]

Oh and you'll probably have to stop having too many children, you'll also have to ask the banks to stop charging interest.


The trouble in many ways is the sheer number of people.
A few people have pointed out that population growth isn't expodential but linear. Nevertheless, growing.

In the past there were a good many control mechanisms:
Infant mortality
Limited food supplies/poor nutrition (irrigation, fertilization, distribution, storage, processing et al)
War
Pestiance
Disease

Population and increasingly organised society leads to further advances and the irradication of many of the traditional controls. Hence greater demands on resources.

A good dose of swine flu or something would fix a few things.

(Bombing just doesn't kill enough, quickly enough...)

[mashman]

The trouble in many ways is the sheer number of people.
A few people have pointed out that population growth isn't expodential but linear. Nevertheless, growing.

In the past there were a good many control mechanisms:
Infant mortality
Limited food supplies/poor nutrition (irrigation, fertilization, distribution, storage, processing et al)
War
Pestiance
Disease

Population and increasingly organised society leads to further advances and the irradication of many of the traditional controls. Hence greater demands on resources.

A good dose of swine flu or something would fix a few things.

(Bombing just doesn't kill enough, quickly enough...)

:rofl: Depends on how many bombs you drop really :).

Very true. Population expansion is a problem... dunno what would happen to the population under a Resource Based Economy. It'd kinda depend on how attitudes change I suppose, or if they change, agreeing that there could be the potential for a population boom... Either way, it's a problem we face today, so using that as an excuse wouldn't be good enough reason for pulling the plug on the idea imho

[rainman]

New Zealand is 5th in the world measured in mineral wealth per head of population....but 25th in the world measured minerals mined per head of population.

But there are hardly any people here... so who gives a shit?


Is zero growth impossible - or a problem?

Nah, check out Herman Daly's work, and maybe feasta.org - they had a big steady state thing a few years ago but seem to have had a redesign since... Their thinking looks about the same though based on a superficial squizz.


Oh and you'll probably have to stop having too many children, you'll also have to ask the banks to stop charging interest.

Ah, you have spotted the problem. Listened to a good podcast from the RSA recently, Sir David Attenborough discussing population. Sad that it's only the old who are brave enough to approach that particular taboo with any vigour.

He didn't take on the bankers though... :)

[mashman]

Ah, you have spotted the problem. Listened to a good podcast from the RSA recently, Sir David Attenborough discussing population. Sad that it's only the old who are brave enough to approach that particular taboo with any vigour.

He didn't take on the bankers though... :)

Have you got a link for that podcast? sounds like an interesting listen :).

[rainman]

Have you got a link for that podcast? sounds like an interesting listen :).

'Twould be here (http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/rsa-presidents-lecture-2011). RSA do those cool RSAnimate presentations... dunno if you have seen one, well worth a look if not.Their 21st Century Enlightenment one is a good place to start.

This is also a good lecture with a similar component to the theme. Don't be put off by the maths at the beginning... dude's a physics lecturer, and the maths isn't as important as the message..

And don't be put off by the naff Youtube title either.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[mashman]

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, I'm not constantly trawling the net to confirm what's already blatantly obvious... Just watched part 1 there. The maths is important alright and not really that hard to follow, but I do get a message ot two from what the guy is talkin about. I'll tackle the other parts and the RSA lecture during Corrie tomorrow... cheers for the linky's.

[Winston001]

I'm surprised that the Resource Based Economy took you that way, or was it the Venus Project that put you off? May I ask why?

The Venus Project site appeared to project humans forward to becoming a bee colony. Or ants. They behave like that and very successfully too, but humans are far more individualistic.

If the Resource Based Economy means a sustainable economy then that's fine.

[mashman]

The Venus Project site appeared to project humans forward to becoming a bee colony. Or ants. They behave like that and very successfully too, but humans are far more individualistic.

If the Resource Based Economy means a sustainable economy then that's fine.

Fair enough, I didn't get that out of it, but can see why it would seem that way with talk of no government, no police force, designated tasks etc... Not that I agree with the idea that no "govt" or police force will be required (not for the first hundred years anyway)... But we are individuals, and we read things differently :).

I believe that that's the idea. You monitor your resources and use them as wisely as possible.

[avgas]

I measured myself today. I have grown 4 cm in the last year. But I certainly don't feel like I have money.

Perhaps this is a horizontal growth economy. As I am no fatter than I was last year.

[Brett]

Time for an enlightenment period away from materialistic consumption, we can still have growth and wealth but we need to get away from choosing to throw our hard earned dollars on tvs, cars, stereos, clothes etc.

Imagine for example if everybody went out once a week to a concert, restaurant, theatre show, museum etc etc. The country would be buzzing.

At the moment we sit at home wearing trendy $150 t-shirts that cost $3 to make having spent the afternoon buying a new bread-pressure-rice-blender that's now sitting in the cupboard ulikely to get used, and knock back piss that we bought at the supermarket and watch reality TV all night on our 52 inch LCD thinking how wealthy we are.


PS - peak oil: someone on nat radio the other day suggested oil should be subsidised so we use the remaining stuff up quicker, thereby creating immediate incentive to develop a sustainable alternative. Top thinking that.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

I worked the same thing out in my own head when we were living in Malta for a few months.
- Had no car, used bus transport.
- Cooked easy meals at home and had about a meal out every day.
- Had 4 t-shirts, 2 jeans, 4 shorts, 2 pairs of shoes, 2 jumpers plus undies and socks.
- Spent recreational time visiting historical sights, diving and chilling by the beach.
- Lived in a 3 bedroom apartment with 2 others flatmates.
- Bought all goods from small local grocers , general produce produced locally (quality not as good as NZ).
- Went to anther european country every 3 weeks or so for a long weekend.

Was hands down THE BEST time I have had.

Did I miss:

- My flash house
- My bike (ok...a little)
- My flash car
- Wardrobe full of clothes
- All my little gadgets that I seldom used (except ipod which I had)

The answer is no. I realised that I was happier with LESS. Having few possessions to worry about and focusing on enjoying the immediate moment left me with a sincere feeling of peace. Now, having been back in NZ for a few years slowly but surely I have transitioned back into a material based lifestyle and losing sight of the things that matter and the level of stress associated with such a lifestyle has increased.
I think that a simpler life is a happier life, but of course it is a balance.

[mashman]

'Twould be here (http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/rsa-presidents-lecture-2011). RSA do those cool RSAnimate presentations... dunno if you have seen one, well worth a look if not.Their 21st Century Enlightenment one is a good place to start.

He didn't take on the bankers though


Heh, Nigel brings up the banks, a few mutters, next question please :rofl:

Wasn't too bad of a listen and the two 16 yr olds question bring the whole thing home for me. Paraphrased to "When should we take over the mantle of worry for the planet. What steps can we take." Heh, there's just too many noy my problem people, so they leave the problems to someone else. And as DA mentions, Steps aren't good enough any more and the only way to change things is via education and talking about the "taboo's".

It's a shame that these people of influence are only presidents of "benign" associations that oversee funding. Unfortunately that is a huge problem, and one I think they need to address before they can have that full and frank discussion over population.

Funding all the way to the bank as Nigel put it. Someone has to go first. This cannot be done in steps, although the rest od the world needs to watch someone else first. Why do I say that? Just look at some of the commentary on here when I mention the Resource Based Economy. Where has that ever happened? Who's tried that before? etc... people want proof that the system will work, yet won't be part of that "experiment"... and they they go and vote whp to leave these decisions up to and we end up with another batch of useless cunts with even less of an idea of humanity.

And the prevaling excuse? Human nature won't allow it. Outfuckinstanding. Anyone who truly thinks that human nature is the problem, has absolutely no concept of what human nature really is. My nature is dictated by the circumstance I find myself in at the time. You'd be insane to think any differently, it has nothing to do with my nature, or my instincts.

[Winston001]

...Just look at some of the commentary on here when I mention the Resource Based Economy. Where has that ever happened? Who's tried that before? etc... people want proof that the system will work, yet won't be part of that "experiment"...

Anyone who truly thinks that human nature is the problem, has absolutely no concept of what human nature really is. My nature is dictated by the circumstance I find myself in at the time.

Tried your experiment? I have two words for you: North Korea.

[mashman]

Tried your experiment? I have two words for you: North Korea.

Do North Korea have a financial system? Because if it does, the "experiment" hasn't been tried.

I was meaning a "Western" civilisation trying it, one that is currently heavily bound by a financial system. There will, no doubt, be tribes around the world who live using a Resource Based Economy approach, and have survived that way for millenia.

[oldrider]

The "Guernsey" experiment went well, same in Alberta and British Columbia but they never controlled the "State" purses, unfortunately!

[mashman]

The "Guernsey" experiment went well, same in Alberta and British Columbia but they never controlled the "State" purses, unfortunately!

heh, and then the banks stopped it as it was working way too well... funny, but interesting to see that it was working :yesy: