'Global Economy is Probably in Recession' (reuters.com) 217
An anonymous reader shares a report: The global economy is probably in recession, with most cyclical indicators showing business activity is flat or falling. Recessions become obvious only once they are well established given the lagging nature of most economic data. And end-of-cycle recessions are usually impossible to distinguish from mid-cycle slowdowns until well after the slowdown has started. The arrival of a recession is always controversial at the time and usually missed by most forecasters, as the leading business-cycle economist Victor Zarnowitz noted. Policymakers are reluctant to announce a recession for fear of harming consumer and business confidence and worsening the downturn ("Business cycles: theory, history, indicators and forecasting," Zarnowitz, 1992). But almost all the main economic and industrial indicators that provide a reliable guide to the business cycle confirm the economy has already slowed severely.
The environmental field agrees (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in environmental due diligence consulting. I've always felt that our field is a very good leading indicator of the general economy. Namely because people will always tend to do their environmental due diligence before anything else in making investment decisions.
That said, I've seen the field basically screech to a halt. (There is a always government work that keeps us busy, but the margins are much lower.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How clueless. We have a record high stock market and record low unemployment. Your field is being ignored because we finally have an administration that correctly has decided you're mostly-irrelevant crybabies.
Re:The environmental field agrees (Score:5, Interesting)
The economy is more complex then just the stock market and unemployment.
1. Stock Market: The prices for stock are based on supply and demand for the ownership of such stock. With Last Years tax cuts, a lot of companies had bought back a lot of their socks, reducing its supply thus raising stock prices. However what is really troubling is Stock Variability we see 500, 600, 1000 point drops in the DJIA then it rises 300 points the next day. It is barely trending upward now. Also stocks tend to go up. So a record high stock isn't really a big deal and we have them all the time.
2. Unemployment is calculated by the number of people who want to work but do not have a job. This isn't peak employment, as boomers are retiring, a big portion of the workforce is leaving the market. leaving a smaller market of employees to fill the gap. Also the buying power of these employees is less, so they cannot be customers.
The current administration is a broken clock, when they get it right, it is only by chance. I Live in a most Republican Area... However I watched my local community in essence die, because water pollution from the local factory, had killed all growth in the town within weeks of its findings. Residents cannot move out because their prices of their home had dropped too much that finding a new home would be too expensive. New businesses do not want to set up shop there because there is no foot traffic because everyone has became too poor and depressed to go out and buy things. Things are really bad right now, it is just the fact that our foundation is wearing out, however it is currently being propped up by a few companies.
Re: (Score:3)
And as a result, the community is probably voting even more Republican?
I always think Republicans are against education and a honest media because it would expose the cause and effect of their policies.
Re: (Score:2)
How clueless. We have a record high stock market and record low unemployment. Your field is being ignored because we finally have an administration that correctly has decided you're mostly-irrelevant crybabies.
USA != Whole world. Title of article 'Global Economy...'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Deficit spending isn't a bad thing, however it should be used on services that create a greater reward then the cost. The GOP was ranting about the Deficit when the interest rates were really low, this made it easy to spend on investments and get a return.
However now with higher interest rates, the GOP had decided to cut taxes, this isn't investing into growth, just putting us into dept.
The Tax Plan from the GOP was sold that it would encourage business growth and expand the economy. This didn't happen, t
Re: (Score:2)
They need to trigger a spike in the global economic engine, about the only thing that would work at this time, forming a Japan Australia economic union, simply because it would instil a huge amount of global confidence and get the global investment engine ticking over as everyone would seek to invest in that union because of expectations not just inherent but also actively promoted. This feed back into other economies and distract from current woes, providing that much needed global economic kick start. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has begun the process of rolling back some very specific rules that he has authority over. His roll backs will be challenged in court and likely overturned.
CERCLA is the law that covers private ownership responsibility. In America, if you buy a property, you own it. And you own everything that has ever happened there and you are assuming full responsibility for it. That's why investors will always do their Environmental Due Diligence first. They don't want to invest a lot of money in architecture pla
Re: The environmental field agrees (Score:2)
Like the Trump administration has been trying to make people think the economy is good? Well, now he learns that the Fed is in control of the economy, not the president.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in environmental due diligence consulting. I've always felt that our field is a very good leading indicator of the general economy. Namely because people will always tend to do their environmental due diligence before anything else in making investment decisions.
That was before Trump's EPA
Re: (Score:2)
A few people have said that. But no. He hasn't repealed a single environmental law.
Every property owner is still responsible for environmental damage caused on their property. Nothing has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
A few people have said that. But no. He hasn't repealed a single environmental law.
So what? He's relaxed standards and interfered with operations.
Re: The environmental field agrees (Score:3)
He has begun the process for relaxing some rules. But as best as I'm aware -and I'm not an expert, I'm just a licensed professional environmental engineer that consults clients in this stuff literally every day, but don't listen to me- nothing has actually changed yet.
It takes years to change rules.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting field. Have California's wild fires impacted your job in any way? As a local, I notice lots of logging trucks rolling out of affected areas. They were allowed to harvest snags, and they're doing it quickly because I'm given to understand that the trees degrade quickly due to storms, rot, animals, etc.
Another side effect is depressed firewood prices. It's great for those of us that heat with wood. It's got to be lousy for wood guys. There are piles of wood in some places, even oak
World's top experts say it's not (Score:5, Informative)
This columnist is clearly not an economist, since the evidence they give of recession is that various numbers are "nearly flat" - not growing very fast. The definition of recession is negative growth. Growing, slowly or quickly, is the opposite of recession.
I'm also not a professional economist. On the other hand, Alan Greenspan is among the top 3 experts in the world on the economy. Greenspan said just this morning that we are NOT in recession and indicators do NOT indicate we're about to enter a recession. "There are positive signs in the short- run which suggest that we are not about to tip into a recession", said Greenspan earlier today.
Growth certainly seems to be slowing, according to Greenspan, and there are potential issues *ling term". We are not in a recession and there is no sign that we will be any time soon, according to top economists.
Re:World's top experts say it's not (Score:5, Interesting)
Greenspan disgraced himself in 2008 and somehow armchair internet warriors like you still call him some kind of expert. Give me a break.
We've been in the longest period of expansion since the founding of this country. The recession is coming whether you like it or not. Stop ignoring history.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenspan disgraced himself in 2008 and somehow armchair internet warriors like you still call him some kind of expert. Give me a break.
Maybe, but Greenspan did predict in 2007 that there could be a recession in 2008: "When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign [...] While, yes, it is possible we can get a recession in the latter months of 2007, most forecasters are not making that judgment and indeed are projecting forward into 2008 ... with some slowdown."
Unfortunately, he completely misidentified what the cause of the recession would be; he d
Re:World's top experts say it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
So.....we're going with Greenspan, who completely flubbed the 2008 recession, as the authority then?
Kinda odd to miss the largest recession since the 1930s, but hey he is saying what you want to hear. Again.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm an armchair economist so perhaps I can be of some assistance.
Smaller businesses are more-vulnerable to economic pressures. As small businesses fail to grow and thrive, the employment among them will undoubtedly slow, relative to larger businesses which attempt to grab at market share with their large resources and greater capacity for managing risk.
One might, then, observe businesses in the United States with 1 to 19 employees coming to a screeching halt in growth about a year and some change a [adpemploymentreport.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But there's also another possibility for your statement about "negative growth in small businesses of 1-19 employees":
We hit full employment, and prospective employees are now able to be much pickier about who they work for. And admit it, most small business have lower pay, little to no benefits, and generally have bad management that drives people away to better jobs with bigger companies.
Look how many small businesses have "Help Wanted" signs up. They can't get people to even apply most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
But you *do* believe in the analysis of John Kemp
No, my response is "we shouldn't blindly trust Greenspan's pronouncements due to his track record." Along with "be careful about listening to people who are telling you what you want to hear".
Like every sane observer of the economy, I'm aware that there is no methodology to accurately predict the start of the next recession.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate both the R and D, but you got a few things wrong, or leaving out details. Like the fact that R was getting beat up because they were not presenting what the D's liked and thus government shutdown.
So saying it was all R fault is not at all honest.
Re: (Score:2)
The true economic predictions and analysis, those that seek to be unbiased and that really seek to reflect reality, are almost always privately owned and treated as a trade secret. Then those small interest groups, using the real data, create the "economic forecasts for public consumption" (fake data or half-truths) that will deceive the masses for their benef
Re:World's top experts say it's not (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there anything that can't be turned into an absurd conspiracy theory these days? Macroeconomic trends are observed by many economists that don't work for partisan think tanks or corporations. For example, the linked article appears to be written by an economist who writes for Reuters.
Skepticism is a good thing. Cynicism is like being willfully blind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I certainly agree that conflicts of interest, bias, secrecy, etc. all can taint published information, that's reason for skepticism, not cynicism. Sure the guy is paid by Reuters to analyze markets and write about it (judging by his output on Reuters and his Twitter feed, this appears to be his full time job), but I don't see any reason to suspect that somehow taints his perspective. The whole point of his job is to present fairly objective reports on global markets. I'm not saying that Reuters is who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is because economic theory is, for the main part, a pile of crap.
You can tell this, because, for example, if you have any experience of business at all, you will know raising the interest rate will increase inflation, not reduce it. The sign in the equation is the wrong way round.
Why:
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are for the last quarter, and the trend is downwards. So if the trend continues, we would be entering a recession.
Of course the trillion dollar question is if the trend will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is, of course, why APK and the GNAA posts always end up at -1. You are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, yes. Because there is only Best and Worst, no in between. But we can see by your quick to sling mud approach that you MUST be correct.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, many countries across the globe are being utterly destroyed by intense immigration. It's not even about race, just sheer astounding numbers of people flowing in who need to make use of infrastructure, sevices, they need homes etc. Yes, some more money is initially put into the economy looking after them but they overall end up a negative for decades until properly integrated
Quality of living drops sharply for the locals and we're expected to suck it up.
See: Australia, NZ, Sweden, Germany, Canada and
Well, that's a first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a first (Score:5, Insightful)
The Fed doesn’t cut interest rates when “the U.S. is going gangbusters”.
Re:Well, that's a first (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
and the U.S. is going gangbusters.
Did the Orange man tell your the economy is going bigly?
Is that why US's economic growth is so stagnant that the federal reserve is stepping in to stimulate it? Is that why trade is down with all parties (not just China)?
About the only good thing the US has going for it is that in the west it is often compared to Europe, and the UK just shat in that swimming pool pissing off all the party guests.
The US economy can best be described as the brightest kid in a special needs class.
10 years, 1 month (Score:3, Insightful)
Last recession ended in June of 2009. This is the longest it's ever gone without a recession.
Meanwhile Trump's actions are pushing us closer towards a recession. Tariffs are a tax on the American consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tariffs are a reduction in purchasing power and only lead to economic inefficiency. They're a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Tariffs are not a tax on consumers. They're a tax on foreign 3rd world producers
Please explain, in detail, how you actually collect that tax on "foreign 3rd world producers".
If you'd prefer to not waste your time, you could just understand that we can't actually tax anything in China. What we can do is collect taxes on Americans when they import goods from China.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually not how that works.
If there's comparative advantage, there is trade. We make 1 airplane or, with the same resources, 1,000 cars? Well it turns out China makes 1 airplane or 100 cars, and it's better for both of us to trade cars for airplanes.
What if the Chinese wage is in the way and their airplane costs more than the US airplane? Like, what if it actually takes them 2x as much resources, 2x the labor?
Exchange rates: the dollar becomes strong against the Yuan, such that 1 American w
Re: (Score:2)
With China's typical low build quality
To a large extent the build quality in China is what you want it to be. iPhones are made in China with a high build quality as that is what is asked for. For cheap, disposable products cheapness is what is specified and delivered. This doesn't necessarily mean that all products could be made at high quality, of course, as you'd hit a skills and machine tools, etc., shortage before then.
No it's fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump's good and easy-to-win trade war, intentional overheating of the economy, and massive wealth transfer to the 1% will never have any consequences, just you watch!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it won't have any consequences for the 1%. They're well equipped to weather recessions. When you're well equipped to weather recessions, a boom-and-bust cycle works out great.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as wealth transfer.
I'll remember this if Liz Warren wins in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
I know they need more than a majority to win but don't rule them out, especially if the economy eats shit (as it appears to be close to doing) and costs Trump the capitalist-utilitarian and 1%er votes along with a decent chunk of his base - they're "economically anxious" after all, aren't they? ;-)
Probably wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, journalist claiming that a recession is nigh is a leading indicator that a recession is NOT coming. When journalist and pundits are claiming that the stock market is about to zoom to the stratosphere is an excellent time to go to cash.
How to know if a recession is looming... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are three ironclad rules to know if a recession is coming:
1) The yield curve will invert. This doesn't *predict* recessions, it actually *causes* them by reducing bank profitability, causing them to tighten lending and reducing available credit..
2) The Fed will start lowering rates.
3) The "This Time Is Different!!!!!" folks come crawling out of the woodwork to explain how the first two are completely innocent in this instance and things are actually going swimmingly.
As all three are here, I have moved my investments to 100% bonds. A Trumpster who works as an investment advisor pilloried me for this. A week later, and I'm up 3.5% while he's down 4.5%.
Re: (Score:2)
> A week later, and I'm up 3.5% while he's down 4.5%.
You are an imbecile, bragging about his day tradiing, not an investor
Re: (Score:2)
If the person hadn't been so consistently antagonistic towards me, I wouldn't have cared so much. :-)
No, one week isn't "statistically significant".
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, MBA/(nearly) financial advisor here. If you want to reallocate your investment ratios, that's one thing, but 100% in anything is probably ill-advised.
There's a weird case (functionally infinite investment timeline), but you wouldn't be in bonds.
My in-laws did something similar during the last significant crash, and it's @#%#ed up their finances for the last 15 years. Your choice, but I'd think hard, in any event. There are a lot of other ways to call that guy an idiot.
Well... (Score:3)
Strange story... (Score:3)
Check the '1 Year' graph yourself on http://www.oilprice.com/ [oilprice.com]
I hate the trade war and the warmongering of the US President, but don't see the indicators of a 'recession'.
The NASDAQ is doing great, as is the NYSE.
This kind of news always has the potential to turn into a 'self fulfilling prophecy', but we're not there.
But that shouldn't mean you don't have to impeach your racist 'president'
Great economy (Score:2)
Re:Recession isn't what it used to be (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the majority of economic indicators were back to normal by 2012-2014.
The big outlier was that consumer confidence was still low, indicating that even though consumers' incomes and habits were back to normal, they still didn't feel secure in having that income in the future.
Re: Recession isn't what it used to be (Score:3, Informative)
Interest rates mean diddly squat when they're being controlled. Under such circumstances they're no longer a representation of the true cost of borrowing capital, but rather just a dial turned to a specific value.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, since the interest rates are primarily a mitigation for inflation, and not really indicative of any change in real value.
You know how long-term economic charts often say "adjusted for inflation"? We just don't need much adjustment these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Interest rates aren't a big indicator for you?
Here's the problem... that question means absolutely nothing. There's four major indicators for a recession: yield curve, stock market, unemployment, and house prices. https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Interest rates are not a major indicator to anyone, except to you apparently. And it certainly doesn't matter whether Sarten-X, or any other random person you want to ask, thinks they're important or not (no offense Sarten-X)... they're not.
Re: (Score:3)
Those four together indicate a recession, but I'd disagree as to what's more important for showing the recovery. Notably, indicators that precede an event (like the yield curve in the article you linked) don't necessarily show when the event will end.
I tend to draw on my experience working in an investment company. When considering investments, we'd look mostly at current-state metrics for the most critical information, essentially asking "is this a good investment now?" rather than thinking about missed op
Re:Can we trust the indicators? (Score:4, Insightful)
Economic indicators are a lot like climate data. They seem reasonable at a glance. But upon deeper inspection they become far more questionable.
And that tells us everything we need to know about your understanding of science, economics, and data.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the solution is only to believe measurements that agree with our biases, which results in feeling better about ourselves, which increases overall human happiness and therefore is morally a good thing. Ignorance is bliss, bliss is good, Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes... Workforce participation... Some of the most politically-charged measurements in existence, because they mean practically nothing but make a lot of people angry.
By the raw numbers, the "not in labor force" [bls.gov] measurement looks awful. That number just keeps going up, and it's just about at the highest it's been since the BLS started tracking in 1975. In fact, it's been rising pretty steadily, ramping up since 2000, with just the last couple of years showing a bit of a peak. In fact, it looks like that
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely candidate for such an event actually started in 1945: The US baby boom. The baby-boomers were born in about 1945 to 1960, and that means they started hitting retirement from 2000 to 2020, with a recession only stretching the trend out by a few years.
In addition, someone with good pension provision able to retire at 60 rather than 65 would show up as not participating in the labour market without it being a marker for recession.
Re: (Score:2)
The world's been in a recession since 2008.
May I recommend you look into what a recession actually is. It has a definition that is based on measured sources. When you're done come back and you can copy and paste the following text into a new post: "Sorry everyone, I just educated myself and I was wrong."
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:5, Insightful)
Millennials have no assets. It's the boomers that own all those shares that will "suffer". (Suffer here is relative. Boomers are cry babies.)
Re: (Score:3)
Some suffering for boomers is a good thing. For example, if house prices crashed by say 50%, that would make boomers poorer but also be a very good thing for younger people.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree.
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, your theory is that it is good for people who have prioritised saving and investment over a lifetime to have to suffer, so younger people who have prioritised spending and experience to have an easier time?
Boomers have suffered house price crashes (at least 3 times now), recessions, scarcity, funding house purchases that have gone over 50% of household income (remember when interest rates were around 15%?). Some also had the post war scarcity, lack of medical care, lack of standard education and so on.
Compare to now, when millennials have trouble getting on the mortgage ladder because they want to live in a popular place (where prices are high) and their priorities have been to enjoy life.
I've seen quite a few millennials who have prioritised their own education and then getting a property race ahead, and get there at a younger age than I did. Most of them also accepted (like I did) that the first place wouldn't be in a popular area, but would do for the time being. A few of them managed to get nice places in decent areas as a first property, and I took my hat off to them (the sacrifice they made was no extravagant holidays, partying and so on, but they thought it was a fair trade).
I'd say some suffering was also required by millennials. Life isn't a bed of roses (and I'm neither a boomer, not a Millennial).
Re: (Score:2)
A house is not an investment, it's a place to live in. People need a place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
A house is not an investment, it's a place to live in. People need a place to live.
A house is an investment when it was developed as such.
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:2)
That's speculation, not investment. Society does't owe you shit, and a housing price collapse would be healthy for the economy.
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only boomers who'd suffer due to a collapse in house prices are those mortgaged to the hilt, ie exactly those who haven't prioritized savings and investment.
A housing collapse affects all areas of the market, like the comparatively minor collapse starting in 2008 showed us.
Everything in the economy is connected; if you take a sledgehammer to one large section of the economy, it will have ripple effects everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in the economy is connected; if you take a sledgehammer to one large section of the economy, it will have ripple effects everywhere else.
If home values fall, property taxes fall, and homeowners benefit. If home values rise, then homeowners can sell properties around the top of the market, rent for a few years, and then buy again when the prices are next depressed.
Re: (Score:3)
So, your theory is that it is good for people who have prioritised saving and investment over a lifetime to have to suffer, so younger people who have prioritised spending and experience to have an easier time?
Don't get your knickers in a knot. If house prices crash by 50% then boomers will leverage their remaining assets to scoop up the bargains just like last time, and millennials still won't have the cash to buy, nor the credit rating.
Re: (Score:3)
Some suffering for boomers is a good thing. For example, if house prices crashed by say 50%, that would make boomers poorer but also be a very good thing for younger people.
It would only make them poorer on paper as their house is likely paid off. For those with mortgages it could put them in negative equity and make it difficult to move, or if not in negative equity at a loan-to-value point that a remortgage would be more expensive. So it would only help those without mortgages, except that with the consequent damage to the economy they might not have jobs to even get a mortgage. So no, a house price crash would not be good for the young, only those with large amounts of cash
Re: (Score:2)
People are less likely to sell their home at a loss, but yes if the cost of housing dropped 50% it would be great for first time home buyers.
There would be less supply, though, as those who were underwater on their loans would not be selling to crystallise their losses, forcing them to declare bankruptcy.
What's with all the boomer hate? (Score:2)
AFAICT they enabled our neat and cushy post 70ies youth lifestyle. So chill.
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:2, Funny)
The Millennials are at least creative. They've given us Ruby on Rails, the Rust programming language, systemd, software project codes of conduct, and dozens of new genders. Baby Boomers haven't created anything as notable.
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Wozniak would like to have a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Woz wasn't a baby boomer. Woz was his own thing.
Re: (Score:3)
" Boomers will likely have retired by now, and with the experience of their years they are likely as well prepared as I am to weather the storm."
90% of babyboomers have less than $300,000 in total net worth. And they have systematically undercut all of their own financial safety nets. Very few would easily coast through a significant downturn.
Re: (Score:2)
in California [$300,000] would be an entirely insufficient net worth as it would buy a one bedroom apartment, give or take.
In Victorville maybe. In any place in California that you actually want to live it will buy you one bedroom, period.
Re: Get ready Millenials... (Score:3)
Both of you are too dumb to breathe.
Rent is not the only expense people have. They also have to eat, you know? A person that has $300k in total net worth, and owns a $300k condo literally had no other money left over for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers when they were growing up: I love low-cost education! The G.I. Bill was great for my parents! Look at this education I can get for exceptionally cheap now.
Boomers 40 years later: We're in charge of the colleges now, time to raise tuition to sky-high levels while fellow boomers in the government shrink financial aid packages down to loans that border on usury. We got education without crippling debt, but now we're raising the drawbridge behind us while snickering that Millenials aren't self-reliant e
Re: (Score:3)
American anons really make me happy to not be an american. If everybody in your country are just sensitive childish social justice warriors and hateful virgin alt-righters, it likely means that the discourse in your country is unbearably stupid.
You should really not make ANY assumptions about the populace of Americans based on the comments of anonymous Slashdot posters. There really isn't anything to be gleaned here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile wages are rising in 2019. not seeing the issue you're talking about, things are going well so far
Bernie'll pull an FDR (Score:2)
I think you're misunderstanding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the U.K. media such as the linked article?
I don't know why you think Trump is so invulnerable. The economy was strong before he became president, he lost the popular vote, and his policies have helped the very people he railed against during his first campaign ("elites") while hurting those he promised to help (blue collar workers, farmers).
I wouldn't be surprised if he won because the electoral college currently gives Republicans quite an advantage, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he lost. A
Re: (Score:2)
>perpetual growth is not sustainable.
This anti-scientific drivel being regurgitated by the same people who never opened a book on origins of the universe is getting tiring.
Universe is expanding. As far as our understanding of space-time goes, it is going to expand perpetually. Therefore, perpetual growth is not just sustainable. It's a natural state of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Universe is expanding. As far as our understanding of space-time goes, it is going to expand perpetually. Therefore, perpetual growth is not just sustainable. It's a natural state of the world.
That's cool, but we're not talking about the universe expanding, we're talking about Planet Earth, which is certainly not expanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that humanity will not eventually go beyond this planet?
Re: (Score:2)
>perpetual growth is not sustainable.
This anti-scientific drivel being regurgitated by the same people who never opened a book on origins of the universe is getting tiring.
Universe is expanding. As far as our understanding of space-time goes, it is going to expand perpetually. Therefore, perpetual growth is not just sustainable. It's a natural state of the world.
If the use of energy increases on the earth then ultimately the oceans will boil as it all becomes heat. So even if efficiency of its use increases 1000 fold then if its use increases for ever the oceans will boil. So, in a purely thermodynamic sense, perpetual growth is not possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Implied assumption needed to reach conclusion you've reached: we stay bound to this planet and never use any extraterrestrial resources (other than energy from the Sun).
You have provided zero explanation as to why you made this assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Implied assumption needed to reach conclusion you've reached: we stay bound to this planet and never use any extraterrestrial resources (other than energy from the Sun).
You have provided zero explanation as to why you made this assumption.
Fair point, although given that the universe is finite and thermodynamics apply there's still a limit. Given the speed of light is finite it puts a more practical limit in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're also utterly unaware of the fact that one of the keys as to why growth has accelerated so much in recent centuries is because we're more efficient - i.e. we're learning how to do more with same amount of input, rather than the growth of old, where the only reliable way to increase output was to increase input by the same amount.