The Impossibility of Growth

[Fake Boris]

No they don't. The Fed isn't lighting a bonfire with the interest they receive on treasuries

This is exactly what it does. With computers and numbers stored in accounts.

Interest payments actually reduce a bank's assets. That can only be remedied by extending more credit.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

This is hilarious.

People are seriously trying to deny that growth is tied to resource extraction.

If the result of growth is diminution in the use of resources, perhaps someone could try to explain why resource extraction has grown exponentially since the industrial revolution (which is the most significant period of sustained growth the world has ever seen).

Just because we choose to consume more raw materials than we did in the 1700s doesn't prove that the economy can't grow with a static level of primary sector activity.

[Fake Boris]

But it's all OK.

We'll make GMO bacteria that degrade steel in a matter of months.

Think of how great an idea that is.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

This is exactly what it does. With computers and numbers stored in accounts.

Interest payments actually reduce a bank's assets. That can only be remedied by extending more credit.

Actually the US treasury receives the Fed's profits. The US Treasury paying interest doesn't destroy money.

[Fake Boris]

Just because we choose to consume more raw materials than we did in the 1700s doesn't prove that the economy can't grow with a static level of primary sector activity.

It can - but only with monetary reform.

I'm glad we're finally getting to it.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

It can - but only with monetary reform.

I'm glad we're finally getting to it.

Monetary policy is completely irrelevant.

[Aeson]

As the prices of resources go up, we'll just compensate by writing more books and issuing more patents.

Those that wish to continue consumption of material resources at the same rate will have to. Of course people can just reduce their consumption of material resources as well. This doesn't mean they have to limit their nominal consumption though, as they can consume more immaterial goods and services.

This is already happening and has been happening for a long time now. It's not the catastrophe you make it out to be.

[Fake Boris]

Actually the US treasury receives the Fed's profits. The US Treasury paying interest doesn't destroy money.

The US treasury paying interest on T-bills doesn't destroy money because it isn't a bank loan.

When you repay a bank loan, you are destroying money.

[Fake Boris]

This is already happening and has been happening for a long time now. It's not the catastrophe you make it out to be.

It is not happening.

Extraction of raw materials is on a constant rise since the industrial revolution.

We can manufacture more goods per unit of material indeed - but the profits go to manufacturing more goods because of the way the monetary system works.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

The US treasury paying interest on T-bills doesn't destroy money because it isn't a bank loan.

When you repay a bank loan, you are destroying money.

OMG people are not going to stop borrowing money if productivity becomes static.

[Fake Boris]

Monetary policy is completely irrelevant.

Yes. Reform, not policy.

[Fake Boris]

OMG people are not going to stop borrowing money if productivity becomes static.

Who is stupid enough to lend money if the economy stagnates?

[Aeson]

But it's all OK.

We'll make GMO bacteria that degrade steel in a matter of months.

Think of how great an idea that is.

We don't need GMO for steel. We already have methods (natural and/or aided by chemicals) that can decay steel rather quickly. Of course recycling steel is even more attractive.

But ignoring recycling of steel, the nails I leave in a bucket of salt water will only take a few months to degrade almost completely. Nails in the acidic and moist soils only have a few month's expected livespan as well. Yet we still have skyscrapers. Imagine that!

[Aeson]

It is not happening.

Extraction of raw materials is on a constant rise since the industrial revolution.

We can manufacture more goods per unit of material indeed - but the profits go to manufacturing more goods because of the way the monetary system works.

It is happening. The nominal value of immaterial goods and services is increasing faster than the nominal value of material goods.

There is no requirement for increased material goods if immaterial goods are increased. What will happen is the price of material goods goes up to the point where supply and demand are balanced. Reduce (or stop increasing) supply and you will see prices increase. This will automatically lead to a higher ratio of immaterial goods and services to material goods. It doesn't necessarily do anything in regards to nominal GDP.

[Fake Boris]

The general argument you hear about renewable practices is that they're too expensive.

We should wait until they are cost competitive with less ecological practices, or else the economy would crash.

So why won't the economy crash then?

There are solutions to this - but they all require a non-capitalist approach.