Automation is collapsing our economy

[billvon]

Lets rewind here, at present we are stagnating, but I don't think we could continue to exist economically if we have 45% unemployment in 20 years

Agreed. If the economy got worse, the economy would be worse. That's different from "stagnation."

You did not think this out did you? Image we build enough solar power satellite to supply our energy needs being equal to all the energy in sunlight hitting the earth by the mid 23 century, what happens to that energy once we are done using it? It all converts to heat eventually, so the earth will have double its energy input, regardless if this is from solar panels on the planet or beaming down from space by some means. What do you think will happen to the earth's surface temperature if we double the amount of energy impacting or being produced on the planet?

If we also double the albedo? Nothing. We still balance, since we are now reflecting twice the energy. Beyond that and we'd have to intentionally radiate waste heat.

However, by that time much of the power consumption (and hence much of the waste heat) will be off Earth. No reason to haul ore and power to Earth when we can smelt aluminum in orbit (for example.)

Yes and that failed to take into account massively increasing field yields. What is your point?

That postulating absolute limits on growth is problematic if you fail to take into account technological advances (and more importantly changes in production and consumption paradigms.)

there is no argument around thermal dynamics, our energy consumption rate as grown by ~3% per year for the last 200 years, if that holds true we will consume more energy then sunlight hitting the earth in 23rd, match the suns output by 31th and the galaxy output by 37th century, assuming 100% efficiency... that just simple math

Agreed. However, "if that holds true" is an unfounded assumption. If trends in the 1900's held true, for example, there would now be hundreds of yards of horse manure covering all our major cities. If trends in the 1950's held true, we would now be unable to breathe the air.

No it won't, imagine we manage to find a way to make 10 times as much of everything using the same amount of energy as before, well then you move all the above predictions down by only 80 years (we increase our energy consumption by 10 times every 80 years). Exponential growth will have to end eventually

Or it will happen in a different way than you imagine, one that does not require logarithmic growth in energy consumption.

 

[Billy T]

I find it interesting how many give reasons why "our" (that seems to be US or US +EU) is collapsing (or at least stagnate) when the facts are that currently 177 of the 220 countries listed have positive YoY GDP growth. See list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate
126 of them are growing faster than the US is (US rate given as 2.2%) but only 19 are growing faster than China's 7.8%.

It is interesting to me because I too think a collapse in US and EU is soon coming (My more than 6 year old prediction of run on the dollar on or before Halloween 2014, with most serious ever depression soon following in 2015 but not for China and the suppliers of food stock, raw materials, and energy to Asia - only a recession at worst.)

To answer the thread's question: It is the growing debt, with thin-air money presses running 24/7 in most of the developed economies, and the rising interest rates on it required to get real investors (not their central banks buying with printing press money) to finance their growing debts.

A 75% rate increase in 1 year will not be a 75% increase in debt service cost, yet.
The Congressional Budget Office agrees that current trends are "not sustainable" and in less than 25 years the deficts will need 100% of GDP (much sooner than Electric's time scales):

CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy . Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Agreed. If the economy got worse, the economy would be worse. That's different from "stagnation."

We are presently stagnating and we will eventually have to remain stagnate... or collapse entirely, Unless we implement massive social and economic reform the later will be the eventual outcome.

If we also double the albedo? Nothing. We still balance, since we are now reflecting twice the energy. Beyond that and we'd have to intentionally radiate waste heat.

How do we reflect twice the energy? Think about all those multiple kilometre long microwave transmitters on the planet and all the heat sinks and all the radiators, just dumping heat into the air and water, why would the heat just radiate at twice the rate into space? If we double the amount of heat on the surface it is not going to radiate away as such a rate that surface temps will not raise greatly, heat radiates away faster only when temperature goes up (black body physics).

However, by that time much of the power consumption (and hence much of the waste heat) will be off Earth. No reason to haul ore and power to Earth when we can smelt aluminum in orbit (for example.)

And then by 31st century we will consume more energy then the sun produces, assuming 100% efficiency. So all you did by making a solar system wide civilization is delay out stagnation by 800 years, in which time we will need to build and complete a dysons sphere and swallow the sun! Even if we develop some kind of warp drive we will have engulfed a billion stars in the galaxy in dysons spheres by the 37th century. It pretty unlikely that going to happen.

That postulating absolute limits on growth is problematic if you fail to take into account technological advances (and more importantly changes in production and consumption paradigms.)

Again we would need to find ways around thermal dynamics, all our present science would need to be thrown out and new physics found that would allow use to produce infinite energy and infinite heat sinks. Most importantly changes in production and consumption paradigms is exactly what I'm saying will have to happen, we will have to change from a compound growth based economy to one that is not.

Agreed. However, "if that holds true" is an unfounded assumption. If trends in the 1900's held true, for example, there would now be hundreds of yards of horse manure covering all our major cities. If trends in the 1950's held true, we would now be unable to breathe the air.

That exactly my point, if exponential growth holds true we would boil our selves alive on earth in 3 centuries or engulf the sun in a dyson sphere in 8 centuries and engulf a billion stars in 15 centuries, it can't physically hold true! our exponential growth MUST end. Does that mean we will die like lemmings, no, population growth is already slowing, if it stops in a century then we could potential provide a high standard of living for all and all live very very well, but without growth, or via a growth rate limited by colonization speed of other worlds, no longer exponential growth. Our economic system will have to change completely for such a non-exponential growth world.

Or it will happen in a different way than you imagine, one that does not require logarithmic growth in energy consumption.

That too is physically impossible! There is a limited amount of energy we need to manufacture anything, and frankly that amount of energy has generally been going up as we have mined all the really easy sources of minerals and energy already. Farming for example did not improve photosynthetic efficiency, just yields in poor soil, weather and insect conditions, and also added in massive amounts of energy in the form of ammonia fertilizer and pumped in water. I have no doubt we could feed 10 billion, maybe 20 billion people on this planet with improvements in genetic engineering and agriculture technology, but a 100 billion, a trillions ,no, not all on this planet. If population growth had held we would have reach 100 billion in the 23rd century and 1 trillion in the 24th century, but that appears to not be holding, it has fallen off, so why should we assuming are economic growth and energy demand trends would hold as well?

 

[billvon]

We are presently stagnating and we will eventually have to remain stagnate... or collapse entirely

Or improve. Agreed, those are the three options.

Unless we implement massive social and economic reform the later will be the eventual outcome.

Massive social and economic reform happens with great regularity here - even without anyone "implementing" it!

How do we reflect twice the energy?

Lots of ways; I don't know what you were referring to when you said "anything else and the albedo of the earth will rise." Presumably more clouds, more reflective surfaces, covering water with solar-PV etc would all be methods.

heat radiates away faster only when temperature goes up (black body physics).

Correct. But much more energy is _reflected_ away when albedo of the Earth rises. The average albedo is currently around 30%, which means it could rise a great deal indeed.

And then by 31st century we will consume more energy then the sun produces, assuming 100% efficiency.

And assuming that everything else stays the same (like our individual use of energy, our population growth rate etc.) I don't think those are safe assumptions.

Does that mean we will die like lemmings, no, population growth is already slowing, if it stops in a century then we could potential provide a high standard of living for all and all live very very well, but without growth, or via a growth rate limited by colonization speed of other worlds, no longer exponential growth. Our economic system will have to change completely for such a non-exponential growth world.

Definitely. About the one thing you can say for sure, looking purely at our history, is that our economic system changes with time.

That too is physically impossible! There is a limited amount of energy we need to manufacture anything . . . .

Yes - and if you assume we will be manufacturing endlessly increasing amounts of durable goods, then you need more and more energy. As we spend more of our resources (i.e. labor) manufacturing IP, then the amount of energy needed tends to _decline._ Thus you have to make assumptions on which direction the future will go - and I think it unlikely that we will continue to just make more and more material stuff.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Massive social and economic reform happens with great regularity here - even without anyone "implementing" it!

Well honestly I don't want to be around when id does happen, without planned implementation, I personally don't want be around when they are putting 'the bastards up against the wall', not that I think I would be up against the wall just the turmoil in general is not a pretty sight.

Lots of ways; I don't know what you were referring to when you said "anything else and the albedo of the earth will rise." Presumably more clouds, more reflective surfaces, covering water with solar-PV etc would all be methods.

Even if we were to build a gigantic solar shade to block out all sunlight (and end days) and then beam down all our energy from space to equal solar flux in waste heat, 20 years after that point we would all boil as we would be demanding twice as much energy as before! That the great curse of exponential growth: there is no final solution and solutions have to come faster and greater at a rate to match!

The average albedo is currently around 30%, which means it could rise a great deal indeed.

Cover the earth by a mirror would get us to 100% (not including IR from the mirror), but the ecological consequences would be horrific (no day light), and as mentioned it would only buy us a little time.

And assuming that everything else stays the same (like our individual use of energy, our population growth rate etc.) I don't think those are safe assumptions.

Well first of their is a minimal amount of energy a person needs to consume, lets take a person in zambia living in a mud hot, with no climate control, no electricity, no water pumps, no powered systems of any kind other then an occasional radio or a flashlight, maybe some candles if they are "well off". As well as no fertilizer, no irrigation, just hand tilled sustenance farms produced less then 2000 calories a day of food per stunted malnourished person and we are talking 3 Mwh/year of energy. Make that a non-tropical environment, with at least 20m^2 per family climate controlled home, with refrigerated food, modern agriculture, clean water via plumbing or and electric gizmos and widgets and we are talking at least 47Mwh/year (Germany). So the difference in living in abject poverty growing your own food by hand and a campfire being the most energy consumption your doing per day and a good first world living is about 15 times energy consumption, or about 90 year difference on a 3% growth exponential curve. There is little chance we could provide a first world living at 3 Mwh/yr/person, so there is little chance we could buy say 80 years by getting 10 times more efficient, without sacrificing standard of living.

Yes - and if you assume we will be manufacturing endlessly increasing amounts of durable goods, then you need more and more energy. As we spend more of our resources (i.e. labor) manufacturing IP, then the amount of energy needed tends to _decline._ Thus you have to make assumptions on which direction the future will go - and I think it unlikely that we will continue to just make more and more material stuff.

You know there may be some truth to this, with the internet and the rise of the digital age it is possible we could get ride of many material things, heck perhaps with cybernetic implants we could all live in tiny apartments with nothing but a mattress and yet live in virtual mansions, heck upload humans and the size and energy constraints could drop greatly, we might be able to have "millions" of humans in the space of a server the size of a warehouse, consuming say 20 watts per CPU "person" (the energy demand of a human brain) that would be 20 MW continuous for a million "people" or 0.17 Mhr/yr/"person" or 1/200 the energy needs of a decent first world living standard today (or 1/20 the energy needs of an impoverish living standard today), and all we have to do is get rid of our bodies!

 

[billvon]

Well honestly I don't want to be around when id does happen, without planned implementation

You've probably already lived through one. When I was born there were no computers to speak of. When my father was born almost no one had a car. When my grandfather was born no one had electricity, and oil companies were questionable tiny companies without a business model. Massive economic changes happen regularly without any planning.

As an example, let's say tomorrow someone invents an easy form of He3-He3 fusion. That would completely change the face of the world - and no one would have planned for it.

Even if we were to build a gigantic solar shade to block out all sunlight (and end days) and then beam down all our energy from space to equal solar flux in waste heat, 20 years after that point we would all boil as we would be demanding twice as much energy as before! That the great curse of exponential growth: there is no final solution and solutions have to come faster and greater at a rate to match!

Exactly! And with exponential growth you get exponential advances at the same time. You probably have even odds as to whether they outpace the problems or cannot keep up with the problems.

Well first of their is a minimal amount of energy a person needs to consume, lets take a person in zambia living in a mud hot, with no climate control, no electricity, no water pumps, no powered systems of any kind other then an occasional radio or a flashlight, maybe some candles if they are "well off". As well as no fertilizer, no irrigation, just hand tilled sustenance farms produced less then 2000 calories a day of food per stunted malnourished person and we are talking 3 Mwh/year of energy. Make that a non-tropical environment, with at least 20m^2 per family climate controlled home, with refrigerated food, modern agriculture, clean water via plumbing or and electric gizmos and widgets and we are talking at least 47Mwh/year (Germany).

Right - and in Western Europe that number has been declining with time.

There is little chance we could provide a first world living at 3 Mwh/yr/person, so there is little chance we could buy say 80 years by getting 10 times more efficient, without sacrificing standard of living.

Again that's a pretty big assumption! I have a car that gets 50mpg. My first car got 13. I haven't sacrificed my standard of living.
When I was a kid our house had a lighting load of about 2 kilowatts. Now it's under 500 watts for the same amount of light. Again, no loss in standard of living.

These trends will continue, and are the primary reason that in the developed world energy requirements have been going down steadily.

You know there may be some truth to this, with the internet and the rise of the digital age it is possible we could get ride of many material things, heck perhaps with cybernetic implants we could all live in tiny apartments with nothing but a mattress and yet live in virtual mansions

Yep. And in that case the valuable commodities would be IP, programming (i.e. labor) computational horsepower and storage. None of them require a lot of power to operate, and as geometries get smaller, they require less energy to create. (Note that each wafer nowadays takes far MORE energy to create, but you get thousands of time the computational and storage ability out of each wafer, so it's a net decline in energy needed.)

Will that happen? (virtual possessions) Maybe - although it's always impossible to predict.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You've probably already lived through one. When I was born there were no computers to speak of. When my father was born almost no one had a car. When my grandfather was born no one had electricity, and oil companies were questionable tiny companies without a business model. Massive economic changes happen regularly without any planning.

That was with the old paradigm, when we were growing to match our rate of progress, now we are not.

As an example, let's say tomorrow someone invents an easy form of He3-He3 fusion. That would completely change the face of the world - and no one would have planned for it.

I would say if it was p-B11 and in a compact and cheap fuser, not a gigantic multiple billion dollar fusion reactor that operates on a fuel that has to be atomically synthesized or mined in outer space. Some time ago there was talk of nuclear power some day being to cheap to meter, but as it turned out nuclear reactors became to expensive to build, maintain and fuel to make them even competitive with fossil fuels. It was not hard to see why: nuclear reactor require containment domes, huge steam turbines, lots and lots of coolants. Unless someone can come up with a fusor that operates on cheap fuels, fits in the size of say a standard shipping container and does not use expensive energy conversion systems (say a linear decelerator and X-ray rectifier instead of a steam turbine and generator) the face of the world will not be changed.

Exactly! And with exponential growth you get exponential advances at the same time. You probably have even odds as to whether they outpace the problems or cannot keep up with the problems.

Then were are all the hypersonic jetliners? Physics and reality has limits on what can be done per unit of energy, time and space that no technological advance can get around without breaking through reality its self. For example when airplanes started they did only 40 mph, in 60 years we got planes over 2000 mph, but then we did not go much further. Supersonic jetliners were planned in mass but testing reveal that the noise pollution limited them to travel over the oceans and even on the only type built teh concord, cost of fueling an hauling people at those speeds made it uneconomical eventually. Passenger plane speeds have been stuck at sub-sonic speeds ever since, there was no exponential advance onward or else we would have crack the light speed barrier by now, instead the field of air travel hit serious physical limits that retarded development of faster travel.

These limits are not hard to predict, all it requires is a little observation even in the most abstract of scenarios. For example we know that it should be possible to make a heuristic thinking machine that have a general IQ of 100, fit in the space of a shoe box and run off a little as 20 W. We don't know for example if its possible to built a energy positive fusion reactor that can fit in a reasonably size building and operate on cheap fuels.

Right - and in Western Europe that number has been declining with time.

No, no its not:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&obj_id=15830&dt_code=NWS&lang=en&ori=HLN

Again that's a pretty big assumption! I have a car that gets 50mpg. My first car got 13. I haven't sacrificed my standard of living.

And how efficient do you think cars can get? Even an electric car is topped out at 120 e-mpg in efficiency and that using charge and recharge cycle that has over 80% efficiency! Of course you could get the millage higher by giving up driving.

When I was a kid our house had a lighting load of about 2 kilowatts. Now it's under 500 watts for the same amount of light. Again, no loss in standard of living.

Well then your home will never get below or even near 40 W lighting, or 100% efficient lighting (assuming 2 Kw was incandescent lighting at 2% efficiency). That would mean that lighting energy usage would hit thermal dynamics limits in 140 years if growth were to hold and energy usage was to remain stable, neither of which is happening: growth is slowing and energy usage still going up. Of course you could get it down to zero by giving up lighting.

These trends will continue, and are the primary reason that in the developed world energy requirements have been going down steadily.

No they won't for all the reasons I stated above.

Yep. And in that case the valuable commodities would be IP, programming (i.e. labor) computational horsepower and storage. None of them require a lot of power to operate, and as geometries get smaller, they require less energy to create. (Note that each wafer nowadays takes far MORE energy to create, but you get thousands of time the computational and storage ability out of each wafer, so it's a net decline in energy needed.)

How many humans do you think can be programmers and IT techs? Everyone? Worse what if the machines become capable of programing, maintaining, building and designing successors machines? Examine Lawrence Summers "Doer argument" in that very long economics lecture video I posted. What value will humans have in a world of universal doers? What labors could humans provide that they could make a living off of, that the doers could not provide and for cheaper since they aren't alive and don't need to make a "living"? Well it would be essentially limited to how many doers you own and how much labor they are doing, you could make money coming up with new things for doers to do (programing), but if your really smart you could just have a doer think of new things for doers to do for you. Those that do not own doers would have no value at all.

Will that happen? (virtual possessions) Maybe - although it's always impossible to predict.

No its not, for example the prediction that the chances our existence as a species becomes infinitesimal as we look on to infinity, is mathematically as sound as 2+2=4. But if you want to be a betting man by all means make that infinity to 1 odds bet.

 

[Billy T]

... And then by 31st century we will consume more energy then the sun produces, assuming 100% efficiency. ....

Why this concern about the distant future? The CBO agrees that there will be collapse in less than 25 years unless there are basic changes, much smaller than those required to cover the earth with solar cells. etc. Did you read post 42? For a few centuries the direct release of heat on earth is not a problem. The thermal problem, if there is one and I think there is and worse it may be very serious - terminating life of warm blooded animals a possibility by 2222 with wet bulb temperature of only 35C for humans.

 

[billvon]

That was with the old paradigm, when we were growing to match our rate of progress, now we are not.

Right. Now we are operating on new paradigms that we didn't have back then. In 50 years we will be operating with yet another set of paradigms you or I can't predict now.

I would say if it was p-B11 and in a compact and cheap fuser, not a gigantic multiple billion dollar fusion reactor that operates on a fuel that has to be atomically synthesized or mined in outer space.

Yes, there are lots of options! And any one of them would change the world to something we wouldn't recognize today.

Unless someone can come up with a fusor that operates on cheap fuels, fits in the size of say a standard shipping container and does not use expensive energy conversion systems (say a linear decelerator and X-ray rectifier instead of a steam turbine and generator) the face of the world will not be changed.

If it's huge and dirt cheap to operate it will also change the world. If it fits in your pocket but takes expensive fuel it will also change the world. There are lots of paradigms out there, which means a lot of ways to disrupt them. Which is why it has always been nearly impossible to predict what will happen in 50 years.

Then were are all the hypersonic jetliners? Physics and reality has limits on what can be done per unit of energy, time and space that no technological advance can get around without breaking through reality its self. For example when airplanes started they did only 40 mph, in 60 years we got planes over 2000 mph, but then we did not go much further.

Right! And thus a simplistic approach (i.e. we went X mph in 1905, Y mph in 1955, therefore by 2005 we should be going Z mph) fails. Similarly, an approach that says "we used X kwhr in 1955 and Y kwhr in 2005, so by 2055 we will need Z kwhr" has the same sort of risk of being wrong.

In the case of airplanes we got to the point where we just didn't need to go faster. Last week I flew around the world. I'd get on an A380 in Tokyo, go to sleep, and wake up in LAX. Would my trip have been improved if that aircraft went 3000 mph? Not really. That technology, for most people, had reached the "good enough" phase. We may see exactly the same effect with energy per capita.

And how efficient do you think cars can get? Even an electric car is topped out at 120 e-mpg in efficiency and that using charge and recharge cycle that has over 80% efficiency! Of course you could get the millage higher by giving up driving.

Will probably top out at about 200 eMPG - at least for single or low occupancy passenger road vehicles. Will that be the prevalent mode of transportation in 50 years? 100? 200? Hard to say. Based on our history I doubt it.

Well then your home will never get below or even near 40 W lighting, or 100% efficient lighting (assuming 2 Kw was incandescent lighting at 2% efficiency). That would mean that lighting energy usage would hit thermal dynamics limits in 140 years

Agreed. However, once one's house is lit, it is not a fair assumption to think that in 140 years they will need 10 times the light, just because on average more people are getting more light for their homes right now. At some point you have enough light, and beyond that (as with the airliner case) there's simply no need for more.

if growth were to hold and energy usage was to remain stable, neither of which is happening: growth is slowing and energy usage still going up. Of course you could get it down to zero by giving up lighting.

Actually you could get it to zero by just not installing any MORE lighting. And cause it to decline by gradually switching to more and more efficient types of lighting.

How many humans do you think can be programmers and IT techs? Everyone?

Probably more than half. Again in 1905 the idea that most people in a country could work in the service industry was ludicrous.

Worse what if the machines become capable of programing, maintaining, building and designing successors machines? Examine Lawrence Summers "Doer argument" in that very long economics lecture video I posted. What value will humans have in a world of universal doers?

As consumers, artists, authors, musicians . . . .

What labors could humans provide that they could make a living off of, that the doers could not provide and for cheaper since they aren't alive and don't need to make a "living"? Well it would be essentially limited to how many doers you own and how much labor they are doing, you could make money coming up with new things for doers to do (programing), but if your really smart you could just have a doer think of new things for doers to do for you. Those that do not own doers would have no value at all.

Right. They would be pure consumers.

No its not, for example the prediction that the chances our existence as a species becomes infinitesimal as we look on to infinity, is mathematically as sound as 2+2=4. But if you want to be a betting man by all means make that infinity to 1 odds bet.

Nonsense. That's like claiming that since yeast multiply exponentially until they all die, that all yeast cells will soon die. (Mathematical fact, and often used in examples of population growth and crash.) Do you want to take THAT bet - that all yeast cells will soon die?

 

[joepistole]

Why this concern about the distant future? The CBO agrees that there will be collapse in less than 25 years unless there are basic changes, much smaller than those required to cover the earth with solar cells. etc. Did you read post 42? For a few centuries the direct release of heat on earth is not a problem. The thermal problem, if there is one and I think there is and worse it may be very serious - terminating life of warm blooded animals a possibility by 2222 with wet bulb temperature of only 35C for humans.

The CBO does not agree. You should read your own references. Further, CBO projections are based on a set of assumptions which may or may not occur. What is certain is the following;

a) US debt problems are long-term and not short term.
b) US debt long-term debt problems are driven mostly by healthcare costs.

In an effort to maintain the appearance of nonpartisanship sometimes the CBO ignores evidence (e.g. improvements in healthcare delivery rendered under Obamcare like automation of records, best practices). The US could cure its long-term debt problems by simply brining its healthcare costs inline with those of other wealthy countries. The US currently pays more than twice what any other wealthy country pays for healthcare. Making our healthcare system more efficient and effective solves our long-term debt problems. It really is that simple.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Right. Now we are operating on new paradigms that we didn't have back then. In 50 years we will be operating with yet another set of paradigms you or I can't predict now.

No your misconstruing technological paradigms for economic ones: economically we have been in one paradigm for the last 200 years, a paradigm of exponential growth, now we are not. Technological revolution of one after another have come faster and faster but we were able to absorb that change in stride and ride it because our economy could grow and absorb the increase capacity, now our economy isn't do that and frank can' anymore.

Yes, there are lots of options! And any one of them would change the world to something we wouldn't recognize today.

...what does that have to do with the fact exponential growth is unsustainable?

If it's huge and dirt cheap to operate it will also change the world. If it fits in your pocket but takes expensive fuel it will also change the world. There are lots of paradigms out there, which means a lot of ways to disrupt them. Which is why it has always been nearly impossible to predict what will happen in 50 years.

Keynes accurately predict economic progress to today from the 1930's, he was horribly wrong about where we would be socially though for he figured that the increase production, which he accurately predicted based on projections, would end up benefiting everyone, that working hours would be down, the people would have the time and luxury to seek the finer things in life, that did not happen, instead most people were working harder and harder just to make ends meet because all the automation predicted 80 years ago by one of the worlds most prominent economist was not owned by these people.

Right! And thus a simplistic approach (i.e. we went X mph in 1905, Y mph in 1955, therefore by 2005 we should be going Z mph) fails. Similarly, an approach that says "we used X kwhr in 1955 and Y kwhr in 2005, so by 2055 we will need Z kwhr" has the same sort of risk of being wrong.

Perhaps your not reading what I'm saying? I'm not saying we will have that much capacity in 23, 31, 37 century, I'm not saying the trend will hold true, I'm saying the trend CAN'T hold, there is not physical way it could! and I'm saying we must enter stagnation. This prediction is not one based on a crystal ball, or whim, its simple mathematics, just as average air travel speeds had to stagnate so will the economic activities of humanity, and all present economic indicators show that it has already happen for many developed nations.

In the case of airplanes we got to the point where we just didn't need to go faster. Last week I flew around the world. I'd get on an A380 in Tokyo, go to sleep, and wake up in LAX. Would my trip have been improved if that aircraft went 3000 mph? Not really. That technology, for most people, had reached the "good enough" phase. We may see exactly the same effect with energy per capita.

You do relies your agreeing with me right? What do you think will happen once we all reach the "good enough" satiated, once we become satiated (dead god did your read my first post on this?)? YES our energy consumption rate will stop (somewhere far far higher then 3 MWh/yr/person though, and that alright, we should be able to supply 10 billion people at 100MWh/yr/person with moderate advances in energy technology, not even fusion!), Yes our consumption rate of everything will stop, we will stagnate. What will be the economic consequence of that? Well I tell you present signs are it is likely not good, unless computational technologies also stagnate at levels 20 years ago, which they didn't, most people will be jobless and obsolete in the non-exponential growth future. We will need a whole new social system to support the obsolescence of people.

Will probably top out at about 200 eMPG - at least for single or low occupancy passenger road vehicles. Will that be the prevalent mode of transportation in 50 years? 100? 200? Hard to say. Based on our history I doubt it.

I would guess that 200 years from now some humans will still be riding horses and other humans will no long be human and be able to move electronically.

Agreed. However, once one's house is lit, it is not a fair assumption to think that in 140 years they will need 10 times the light,

That not what I'm saying at all, rather that there would be 10 houses for every one now in a 140 years if the trends held true.

just because on average more people are getting more light for their homes right now. At some point you have enough light, and beyond that (as with the airliner case) there's simply no need for more.

...you did not read my thread starting post did you? But please keep arguing for my stagnation future.

Actually you could get it to zero by just not installing any MORE lighting. And cause it to decline by gradually switching to more and more efficient types of lighting.

That does not even make sense! What your saying is we could just keep switching lighting past 100% efficiency! You do relies that is physically impossible, there will be no technology that will make it possible. But hey if you want to hold out hope that we can break thermal dynamics because "well anything possible" yeah well good luck on that, a monkey jumping out of your ass is also "possible" but its so dam improbable its insane to hope for it, and even that is less possible then breaking thermal dynamics.

Probably more than half. Again in 1905 the idea that most people in a country could work in the service industry was ludicrous.

Right now the only new job out of the top 30 jobs to have come into existence in the last 70 years is IT techs at about 0.5% of all jobs, your saying that in a few decades it can grow to 50%? All the truck drivers, cashiers and sales clerics (top jobs) and most if not all the rest of the top 30 will make it as programers? First of all unlike a truck driver or a cashier once a program makes a program it can do work of many many people simulatnously. That would be fine if our economy could grow to absorb all the extra work, but it can't, instead people would need to be fired and demand for new programs will eventually become saturated. And then again what if machines start programing, repairing, optimizing, themselves?

As consumers, artists, authors, musicians . . . .

And where will they get the money to consume? Imagine if everyone was selling art, like oh 80% of the population, do you think they could all sell there art and live off it? Of course they would also need to be buying each other's art, money changes hands for art, but also they need to spend money on food, cloths, homes, stuff, all of which manufacture by these doers who do not exchange money back because they have not need for art, all the money they get for products and services they provide simply goes to their owners, who will either buy warhouse loads of art per minute, or will just invest all that money in stock and investments in doers as they do today. So all that money made by all the artiest will eventually fall in an investment black hole, and the artiest become starving artist (except for a very small group of them who are fucking awesome artist).

Like you Keynes assumed all the money would be diversified back to everyone, that not what happened and that not what is happening, but that must be what happens or all those "starving artist" are going to either curl up and die, or revolt. If everyone income was supplemented in some way by doers then everyone would have the option to be artist, to dedicate themselves to the arts for art sake, and would not need to worry about making money for it, because with that much art in circulation almost all of it would have very little monetary value. The only problem is the present owners of doers (sub-doers for now) don't want to give their money back, worse the political mind scape of present people can't even handle such an idea.

Right. They would be pure consumers.

And where do they get the money to consume?!?!

Nonsense. That's like claiming that since yeast multiply exponentially until they all die, that all yeast cells will soon die.

No I was talking about a separate prediction that has nothing to do with exponential growth ending other then both predictions are based on mathematical certainty. But yes all yeast cells will die, eventually the sun will burn out and the earth will become a dried up cinder and the universe its self will eventually no longer be able to sustain life, and there will be no yeast: as we look out to infinity the chance yeast cells will exist become infinitesimal.

(Mathematical fact, and often used in examples of population growth and crash.) Do you want to take THAT bet - that all yeast cells will soon die?

I never said anything about "soon" your present a red harring, rather lets look back at my exponential growth ending prediction: I will take bets on that not only it will end before the 23rd century but that it has already ended.

 

[Billy T]

The Half Nile Project of China, 6+ decades in the making:

Note the large earth machine in bottom center edge of photo.

The CBO does not agree. ... Further, CBO projections are based on a set of assumptions which may or may not occur. What is certain is the following;

a) US debt problems are long-term and not short term.
b) US debt long-term debt problems are driven mostly by healthcare costs. ...

All predictions about the future are based on sets of assumptions, including yours given in "a)". I replaced the CBO's "debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely." with "collapse" to be more directly on thread, but that means the same thing if, as at present, debt is growing much faster than the economy. I.e. the economy (GDP) is not increasing by even 0.1% of 85 billion dollars per month of new thin-air money now being created.*

On your "a)" How can you be sure there is no short term debt problem? If no one but the Fed buys new treasury bond issue that is the path Zimbabwe took. It could happen in a few months. The bid to cover ratio has been falling, Foreigners are buying an ever smaller fraction to the new bonds. (Fed now must buy slightly less than 80% of the total.)

Before the QEs started, China held more than the Fed did of US bonds, now in ~3 years the Fed holds twice what China does! It is quite possible with current trends that by Halloween 2014, only the Fed will be buying Treasury paper, except for insurance companies who have well known future FIXED DOLLARS obligations to pay, so they don't care if when they pay the new widow the $100,000 of her husbnd's life insurance policy, it only pays for one month of her rent.

Again how are you so sure there is no short term debt problem? As I displayed in graph in post 42, in only one year the interest rate on the proto-typical of the average bond has risen 75%! What if by mid 2014 it has doubled again? (That would still be well below what it was when Volker was in charge of the Fed.) Why are you so sure?

* First graph pair is few years old. Gross national debt now is 17 trillion dollars and 104+% of GDP** (State and private debt makes total considerably more.)

Debt is rising even as % of GDP but Obama has slowed its rise.
Also note that birth rates tend to fall during recession. Especially this one with many who should be forming new families still living with their parents or same sex apartment sharing due to poor economy /jobs etc. Thus a graph of gross debt per person is rising even faster than show in first graph above.
How long do you think this is sustainable? ("Debt is no problem in the short term.") I predicted a big problem in less than 2 years (less than 1, if I don't use my 7% timing error margin).

** Unlike China's GDP, the US's GDP is mainly cost of things with zero value only a year later - I.e. last year tickets to the rose bowl, restaurant meals, Disneyland visits etc. Not high speed trains or the "Half Nile" water project for the dry NE part of China. (Moves half the Nile's annual flow, half the length of the Nile from SE China's rivers, even lifting it 45 meters in the process!) Initial funding for the Half Nile began in 1950. US can't do huge benefit project needing 6+ decades before first benefit. Not even one with benefits twelve years into the future (after most in Congress has been replaced.)

 

[billvon]

No your misconstruing technological paradigms for economic ones

Technological paradigms BECOME economic ones. Think oil drilling, automotive technology, aircraft, farming.

economically we have been in one paradigm for the last 200 years, a paradigm of exponential growth, now we are not.

Right. Paradigms change. They always have.

..what does that have to do with the fact exponential growth is unsustainable?

Nothing. What it does mean is that the assumption that our economy has to grow exponentially to not collapse is probably a bad one.

Keynes accurately predict economic progress to today from the 1930's, he was horribly wrong about where we would be socially though for he figured that the increase production, which he accurately predicted based on projections, would end up benefiting everyone, that working hours would be down, the people would have the time and luxury to seek the finer things in life, that did not happen, instead most people were working harder and harder just to make ends meet because all the automation predicted 80 years ago by one of the worlds most prominent economist was not owned by these people.

Agreed. Such predictions can be monumentally wrong.

Perhaps your not reading what I'm saying? I'm not saying we will have that much capacity in 23, 31, 37 century, I'm not saying the trend will hold true, I'm saying the trend CAN'T hold, there is not physical way it could! and I'm saying we must enter stagnation. This prediction is not one based on a crystal ball, or whim, its simple mathematics, just as average air travel speeds had to stagnate so will the economic activities of humanity, and all present economic indicators show that it has already happen for many developed nations.

The prediction I disagree with is your prediction that lack of economic growth = stagnation = collapse.

That not what I'm saying at all, rather that there would be 10 houses for every one now in a 140 years if the trends held true.

100 years ago, when almost no one on the planet had electrical power, such predictions on increases in electric usage made sense. Now with 75% of the globe having electricity, there's not as much increase to be had. Again, there will come a point at which everyone has enough electrical power - and that will set a natural limit on how much power we use.

That does not even make sense! What your saying is we could just keep switching lighting past 100% efficiency! You do relies that is physically impossible, there will be no technology that will make it possible. But hey if you want to hold out hope that we can break thermal dynamics because "well anything possible" yeah well good luck on that, a monkey jumping out of your ass is also "possible" . . .

Sorry you've stopped being able to discuss this rationally. Have a good night.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Technological paradigms BECOME economic ones. Think oil drilling, automotive technology, aircraft, farming.

Your really trying hard to Straw Man here: back to the point no technological "paradigm" is going to change the fact that our economy must end its exponential growth due to the laws of physics.

Right. Paradigms change. They always have.

Yes and what does that mean for our future, if we are enter an age of stagnation economically, what does that mean for employment, social mobility, standards of living, stocks, bonds, interest rates, value of currency, etc, etc, short answer: it means devastating things for some of those, it means a whole social systems collapsing or changing entirely, the very concept of money its self may someday need to be dropped, it means "interesting times" in the old Chinese curse, times of change that could lead to get prosperity if we adapt well, and mass poverty and even genocide if we do not. And quite possibly all of this will happen in this century! Some of us alive today may live (or die at) the outcome. Imagine I told someone in the year 1913 that in the future there would be massive wealth, people will have landed on the moon, life span will be in the 80s and rising, the fucking internet, "Yeah" they would say then I would tell them "oh and there will be a great depression, two world wars killing over 50 million, Europe in total ruin for over a decade, massive social upheavals, several decades of nail biting fear of total nuclear apocalypse..." I don't think they would be that excited for the future. What we are going to experience in this century will likely curb stump everything that came before!

Nothing. What it does mean is that the assumption that our economy has to grow exponentially to not collapse is probably a bad one.

No the way our economy is design it needs exponential growth or else it will collapse, we will have to redesign our economy or suffer the consequences of decreasing standards of living, mass unemployment, revolts and even potentially genocide.

Agreed. Such predictions can be monumentally wrong.

You did not read what I said did you: his project was right on target, but his outcome was not, he was to optimistic that all this production he accurately predicted would provide everyone with raised incomes. I'm being neutralist at least: we know by simple mathematics and the laws of physics our exponential growth must end and by data from today that is already has for most developed nations: the outcome could be utopian if play our cards right, or it could be apocalyptic if we don't. Unlike Keynes I'm not going to assuming we are going to come out better in the end.

The prediction I disagree with is your prediction that lack of economic growth = stagnation = collapse.

First of lack of economic growth is stagnation. Collapse on the other hand is a probability, magnified by stagnation but it is not assured. Economist Robert Reich for example thinks we are going to eventual pull up our pants and do what needs to be done to fix this, but I don't have the faith in this nation or humanity in general as he does. Thus to avoid collapse from garenteed stagnation we will need massive changes socially and economically. For example we will need highly progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth from the rich that own "doers" to the poor and middle class that do not. Yet based on present political atmosphere few are even thinking of anything like that. Complete overhaul of our tax system to something far more progressive, raising the minimum wage to $12 or even greater, a maximum wage, massive social investment in stocks and private shares... these things are not even being talking about today!

100 years ago, when almost no one on the planet had electrical power, such predictions on increases in electric usage made sense. Now with 75% of the globe having electricity, there's not as much increase to be had. Again, there will come a point at which everyone has enough electrical power - and that will set a natural limit on how much power we use.

Why thank you for restating and reenforcing my argument for me.

Sorry you've stopped being able to discuss this rationally. Have a good night.

How that anal monkey?

 

[Billy T]

... For example we will need highly progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth from the rich that own "doers" to the poor and middle class that do not. Yet based on present political atmosphere few are even thinking of anything like that. Complete overhaul of our tax system to something far more progressive,. ...

I have four or five posts over about as many years, telling how essential this is and that tax reduction of the very well off, by GWB was a disaster for an economy with Joe American needing to buy ~2/3 of the production. Pointing out in all of them that redistribution was EXACTLY the reverse of what was needed and is helping to concentrate wealth even faster. I have given math proofs several times that Wealth must concentrate without stonger than present redistribution via steeply progressive tax rates and or strong inheritance taxes. Usually summarizing with the folk wisdom: "It takes money to make money."

 

[joepistole]

No your misconstruing technological paradigms for economic ones: economically we have been in one paradigm for the last 200 years, a paradigm of exponential growth, now we are not. Technological revolution of one after another have come faster and faster but we were able to absorb that change in stride and ride it because our economy could grow and absorb the increase capacity, now our economy isn't do that and frank can' anymore.

...what does that have to do with the fact exponential growth is unsustainable?

Keynes accurately predict economic progress to today from the 1930's, he was horribly wrong about where we would be socially though for he figured that the increase production, which he accurately predicted based on projections, would end up benefiting everyone, that working hours would be down, the people would have the time and luxury to seek the finer things in life, that did not happen, instead most people were working harder and harder just to make ends meet because all the automation predicted 80 years ago by one of the worlds most prominent economist was not owned by these people.

Perhaps your not reading what I'm saying? I'm not saying we will have that much capacity in 23, 31, 37 century, I'm not saying the trend will hold true, I'm saying the trend CAN'T hold, there is not physical way it could! and I'm saying we must enter stagnation. This prediction is not one based on a crystal ball, or whim, its simple mathematics, just as average air travel speeds had to stagnate so will the economic activities of humanity, and all present economic indicators show that it has already happen for many developed nations.

You do relies your agreeing with me right? What do you think will happen once we all reach the "good enough" satiated, once we become satiated (dead god did your read my first post on this?)? YES our energy consumption rate will stop (somewhere far far higher then 3 MWh/yr/person though, and that alright, we should be able to supply 10 billion people at 100MWh/yr/person with moderate advances in energy technology, not even fusion!), Yes our consumption rate of everything will stop, we will stagnate. What will be the economic consequence of that? Well I tell you present signs are it is likely not good, unless computational technologies also stagnate at levels 20 years ago, which they didn't, most people will be jobless and obsolete in the non-exponential growth future. We will need a whole new social system to support the obsolescence of people.

I would guess that 200 years from now some humans will still be riding horses and other humans will no long be human and be able to move electronically.

That not what I'm saying at all, rather that there would be 10 houses for every one now in a 140 years if the trends held true.

...you did not read my thread starting post did you? But please keep arguing for my stagnation future.

That does not even make sense! What your saying is we could just keep switching lighting past 100% efficiency! You do relies that is physically impossible, there will be no technology that will make it possible. But hey if you want to hold out hope that we can break thermal dynamics because "well anything possible" yeah well good luck on that, a monkey jumping out of your ass is also "possible" but its so dam improbable its insane to hope for it, and even that is less possible then breaking thermal dynamics.

Right now the only new job out of the top 30 jobs to have come into existence in the last 70 years is IT techs at about 0.5% of all jobs, your saying that in a few decades it can grow to 50%? All the truck drivers, cashiers and sales clerics (top jobs) and most if not all the rest of the top 30 will make it as programers? First of all unlike a truck driver or a cashier once a program makes a program it can do work of many many people simulatnously. That would be fine if our economy could grow to absorb all the extra work, but it can't, instead people would need to be fired and demand for new programs will eventually become saturated. And then again what if machines start programing, repairing, optimizing, themselves?

And where will they get the money to consume? Imagine if everyone was selling art, like oh 80% of the population, do you think they could all sell there art and live off it? Of course they would also need to be buying each other's art, money changes hands for art, but also they need to spend money on food, cloths, homes, stuff, all of which manufacture by these doers who do not exchange money back because they have not need for art, all the money they get for products and services they provide simply goes to their owners, who will either buy warhouse loads of art per minute, or will just invest all that money in stock and investments in doers as they do today. So all that money made by all the artiest will eventually fall in an investment black hole, and the artiest become starving artist (except for a very small group of them who are fucking awesome artist).

Like you Keynes assumed all the money would be diversified back to everyone, that not what happened and that not what is happening, but that must be what happens or all those "starving artist" are going to either curl up and die, or revolt. If everyone income was supplemented in some way by doers then everyone would have the option to be artist, to dedicate themselves to the arts for art sake, and would not need to worry about making money for it, because with that much art in circulation almost all of it would have very little monetary value. The only problem is the present owners of doers (sub-doers for now) don't want to give their money back, worse the political mind scape of present people can't even handle such an idea.

And where do they get the money to consume?!?!
No I was talking about a separate prediction that has nothing to do with exponential growth ending other then both predictions are based on mathematical certainty. But yes all yeast cells will die, eventually the sun will burn out and the earth will become a dried up cinder and the universe its self will eventually no longer be able to sustain life, and there will be no yeast: as we look out to infinity the chance yeast cells will exist become infinitesimal.
I never said anything about "soon" your present a red harring, rather lets look back at my exponential growth ending prediction: I will take bets on that not only it will end before the 23rd century but that it has already ended.

You have a bunch of jumbled ideas. For starters, we have not been operating on a “exponential growth paradigm” whatever that might be. Since the implementation of Keynesian economics policies some 80 years ago our economy has stabilized and has been consistently growing. We no longer have the extreme swings from growth to depression. Moderate growth trumps “exponential growth” all day long. Ask China about its problems with managing double digit growth.

I think what you are trying to say, is that technology will make humans obsolete. And if that is the case you are trying to make, I will agree with you, and when that happens, be it 10 years or 20 years or more from now, it will have significant and profound implications for our society…social and economic. But that has nothing to do with our current economic circumstances. Our economy is not collapsing, it is growing and that is a hard fact.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You have a bunch of jumbled ideas. For starters, we have not been operating on a “exponential growth paradigm” whatever that might be. Since the implementation of Keynesian economics policies some 80 years ago our economy has stabilized and has been consistently growing. We no longer have the extreme swings from growth to depression. Moderate growth trumps “exponential growth” all day long. Ask China about its problems with managing double digit growth.

Perhaps you don't understand what growth is? When economist say a country/region/global has been growing X% per year, that is an EXPONENTIAL! "Moderate" 2% growth will double the economy every 36 years and by ten times every 117 years. In 1000 years an economy that grow "moderately" by just 2% will have grown to 390 million times its original size. Any growth rate above 0% is eventually UNSUSTAINABLE!

I think what you are trying to say, is that technology will make humans obsolete. And if that is the case you are trying to make, I will agree with you, and when that happens, be it 10 years or 20 years or more from now, it will have significant and profound implications for our society…social and economic. But that has nothing to do with our current economic circumstances. Our economy is not collapsing, it is growing and that is a hard fact.

No because long before machines get smarter then us the progress in weak AI, automation and efficiency increases in production, sales and distribution per worker will have caused irreparable damage to our economy. We are already seeing it in developed coutnries with high unemployment, underemployment, longer hours worked, wage stagnation, reduced job security, increase profits for the wealth. And more so the growth we are presently having of 0-3% per year in developed countries will likely be reversed in cycles by recessions creating and overall 0% growth rate. Japan is the perfect example. Please watch the video I posted.

Billy, you are not few, your less then that, Franky your a Kook, a crackpot, that is how outlandish what you say is to most people, if that does not inspire a sense of doom in you I don't know what will.

 

[joepistole]

Perhaps you don't understand what growth is? When economist say a country/region/global has been growing X% per year, that is an EXPONENTIAL! "Moderate" 2% growth will double the economy every 36 years and by ten times every 117 years. In 1000 years an economy that grow "moderately" by just 2% will have grown to 390 million times its original size. Any growth rate above 0% is eventually UNSUSTAINABLE!

LOL…yeah, so according to you any growth above zero is “exponential”. On the very long term, billions or trillions of years, that may be so. The universe and everything in it may end at some point in time or humanity could be destroyed by an meteor impact or a gamma ray burst or we could destroy our environment and ourselves by accident or design. But it really isn’t relevant to our current circumstance. In essence what you are trying to do is put a cap on infinity. And you just cannot be reasonable and put a cap on infinity.

No because long before machines get smarter then us the progress in weak AI, automation and efficiency increases in production, sales and distribution per worker will have caused irreparable damage to our economy. We are already seeing it in developed coutnries with high unemployment, underemployment, longer hours worked, wage stagnation, reduced job security, increase profits for the wealth. And more so the growth we are presently having of 0-3% per year in developed countries will likely be reversed in cycles by recessions creating and overall 0% growth rate. Japan is the perfect example. Please watch the video I posted.

No, automation has not yet damaged the economy, nor does it need to. How we allocate resources is our choice. We decide how resources are allocated, not a machine, and not some magical hand. Here are some facts for you to think about. Unemployment has been much higher in the past and for much longer periods. It didn’t irreparably damage our economy. We have had wage stagnation in the past, we recovered. Everything you mentioned we have had before and we have had more of it.

Our economy is not magical. Wither it grows or shrinks, it is the result of the collective decisions we make (e.g. Keynesian stimulus or not, deregulation or not, contractionary or expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, etc.). Japan is an example of not following the economic rule book, nothing more, nothing less.

The facts are, our economy is growing, jobs are being added to our economy every month. Our unemployment rate is shrinking. Our economy is not stagnating. And as long as Republicans in congress don’t do something stupid like default on the debt or succeed with any of their many fiscally irresponsible policies, and God doesn’t throw a meteor at us or point a gamma ray burst at us or end the universe, we will be fine. Middle class woes have been caused by one thing, tax breaks and special deals for the wealthiest among us. That is one of the many fiscally irresponsible Republican policies I have referred to. Over the course of the last three decades, since Reagan, there has been a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy through the tax code. Reagan increased payroll taxes and reduced taxes on the wealthy. That is why the middle class is hurting these days. It is not the result of some magical economic defect.

 

[Billy T]

Things like this:

The government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after they were pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by investments in bad loans. The two took $187.5 billion in taxpayer aid before reporting record profit this year as the housing market rebounded.

Just today I heard on CNN (Morgan Stanly, I think it was) agreed to pay government 4 billion dollars for knowingly selling AAA rated "toxic trash" to Freddy & Fanny May, mainly.

 

[ElectricFetus]

LOL…yeah, so according to you any growth above zero is “exponential”. On the very long term, billions or trillions of years, that may be so. The universe and everything in it may end at some point in time or humanity could be destroyed by an meteor impact or a gamma ray burst or we could destroy our environment and ourselves by accident or design. But it really isn’t relevant to our current circumstance. In essence what you are trying to do is put a cap on infinity. And you just cannot be reasonable and put a cap on infinity.

I'm merely trying to prove that we must stop growing, as a matter of mathematical fact. As for infinity, there is little physical chance we could ever manage anything close, as is with 3% growth we would need to put a Dyson's sphere around every star in every galaxy in the known universe in under 10,000 years to maintain that growth rate. That not millions of years, or billions or trillions of years away. That is tens of billions of light years covered thought, which means we will have to propagate our civilization out at speeds of millions of times faster then light to maintain that growth rate for even the next few millennium. So no we will not hit physical limits near infinity, but likely within centuries assuming we achieve space colonization in mass and likely within the the next century or two if we don't. Of course we could reduce our growth rate but at even 2% growth it is not likely we will be able to sustain an economy of 10 times today's size in the 22nd century, also even 2% growth is not consider good amongst many economist who consider higher numbers aah "sustainable".

No, automation has not yet damaged the economy, nor does it need to. How we allocate resources is our choice. We decide how resources are allocated, not a machine, and not some magical hand. Here are some facts for you to think about. Unemployment has been much higher in the past and for much longer periods. It didn’t irreparably damage our economy. We have had wage stagnation in the past, we recovered. Everything you mentioned we have had before and we have had more of it.

Have we had machines that could compute billions of calculation a second that fit in a hand in the past? We have never had today's cumulative products to worker ratio before, we have never had the ability to produce as many products as we can today with as few workers as we can today. We have never been able to feed everyone, to the point of obesity for many with land to spare using just 2% of our labor force. US industrial output is higher today then ever before with only 9% of the labor force, we have never had an 80% service economy, so in short you lie, not everything I said we have had before, in these specifics we have something very new and different happening. But if you want to compare to the past I recommend good old slavery times when a few white land owners lived the good life on the backs of slave, and many southern whites without slaves could not make any money against slave labor and lived in abject squalor, that is sort of what we are heading back for.

Our economy is not magical. Wither it grows or shrinks, it is the result of the collective decisions we make (e.g. Keynesian stimulus or not, deregulation or not, contractionary or expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, etc.). Japan is an example of not following the economic rule book, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh what rules exactly did it break?

The facts are, our economy is growing, jobs are being added to our economy every month. Our unemployment rate is shrinking. Our economy is not stagnating.

Please watch that video I posted. What kind of jobs are we adding every month? how does it compare to our population growth? What is the real unemployment rate counting sickly, retired or people no longer looking for jobs? What is the underemployment rate?

And as long as Republicans in congress don’t do something stupid like default on the debt or succeed with any of their many fiscally irresponsible policies, and God doesn’t throw a meteor at us or point a gamma ray burst at us or end the universe, we will be fine.

I can think of many many other likely events that could make us, not fine, that could come in the next few years.

Middle class woes have been caused by one thing, tax breaks and special deals for the wealthiest among us.

No that is not the only thing, but it is one and part of the solution will be needing to reversing that, SIGNIFICANTLY! Do you think that going to happen any time soon? We need to get back to taxes on the top 1% being at least 50% of their income! Massive inheritance taxes, very large taxes on large stock holdings, etc, etc. Heck we can't even get congress out of an austerity mindset when what we need is the opposite: massive public assistance paid for directly out of the pockets of the rich!

That is one of the many fiscally irresponsible Republican policies I have referred to. Over the course of the last three decades, since Reagan, there has been a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy through the tax code. Reagan increased payroll taxes and reduced taxes on the wealthy. That is why the middle class is hurting these days. It is not the result of some magical economic defect.

I would not say the fact more and more workers are obsolete, that the value of human labor is dropping, is magical.