If youi knew anything regarding economics, you would know growth the a key part, and kind of the whole point.

Second.

I use to say they're always looking for growth when they can't even get stability.

It's about common sense

Peace

You are correct. The thing is western economic theories were conceived when there was an apparent limitless supply of raw materials , from the third world who didn't consume them. However, that third world is joining the western economies and the theories reliant on constant growth are doomed to failure.

Right wing politics cannot cope with this and respond with the "capitalism had never been given a proper chance" chant. Left wing politics have not come up with an alternative to constant growth but temper the need for rampant growth instead ie they delay the inevitable.

The world does have limited resources and we are coming up against the limits of rare earths for our electronics, water is becoming scarcer with water tables declining rapidly, the oceans are slowly dying from over consumption of fish etc etc. We are definitely heading for a collapse which will accelerate as China and India ramp up production and workers there demand the same things as us but there are 10 times as many!

What we need is an economy based on sustainability with countries utilising far far more self generated and re-cycled materials.

Money / Power.
And making more debt always, ''good'' thing with more debt, there are more and more people (each day) which can support the new created debt.
But yea it's kinda silly and in the end it just can't work.

When for example a economy grows, or like for example you ''grow'' with more money, it's always at a cost of something or someone. Something just isn't right.

It's hard to find a sollution I guess, since when you so deep in something for such a long time which grows bigger each day, so in the end. It will solve but then like an implosion. Like for example facebook, they don't really earn all that money, or Britney Spears, some good soccer player, or all the milions of copy's of windows.. That money, always comes from someone, at a cost.. It's not really they worked their asses that much to come even close to that money they ''earn''. If you work really hard and with your body you get paid #.. and with zero attention, let alone respect? somehow money gives you respect, power, do as you wish. You can do what you want, and get away with it.

But hey, the good thing is I guess, we can always start over? Lets hope we find a better sollution after.

I was wondering this the other day on a state level.

There was a talking head on the radio running for governor and he kept going on about "growth" and making the state "competitive."

I cant figure out why any of that matters. Is there some race all the states are running? Where is the finish line? How do we know who's winning? Why do I care where the state of my residence places? What's in it for me?

Personally, I'd prefer it if this state ceased being attractive to newcomers. I want to see an increase in exodus. Every last person can leave and take their taxes and dependency with them.

A competition implies there is something to be won. Maybe I'm just not seeing the prize?

I've had it explained to me that government wants to attract more people into an area of control to spread the burden of operation out and in turn make it easier for everyone. Yet I have never seen that in practice. The more people who come into an area the higher the overall burden for everyone gets. Is that winning?

According to the pattern I am seeing winning means high population density, high taxation and widespread municipal corruption and losing is low population density and a virtual lack of government.

How does that make sense?

It's usually best to start at the beginning. Some mistakenly think that interest rates are the sole cause of growth requirements. Consider for a moment that they don't exist.

You create 10 units of currency, by 'borrowing' them from an institution that creates them. You have to pay back the 10 units. You now pay for something you need. Another party now has, say 11 units. You have nine. The other guy also borrowed 10 units. He can settle his 10 unit debt and still has 1 unit to spend. If he spends it with you, you can settle your remaining 1 unit of debt. But now there are no units left. A third party must exist, who also borrows money. Then a fourth, a fifth etc. Each person must somehow convince another to part with their money. To avoid the zero-sum, in which all debt is settled and no money remains, requires that new parties to the system continually emerge. Or, growth, as we call it.

The stable ecosystems you used as an example are situations where two rates of change happen to be equal. The rate of birth, and death. If populations grow, the money supply must grow with it, interest rates or not. Of course, having money in circulation, physical or digital is, in itself, the basis of some people's business model.

Hitler said that "world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby", and later said that "the economy is something of secondary importance"

The economy should be secondary. National Socialism is the solution. National Socialism aims at freeing a nation by emphasizing economic self-sufficiency. If the needs of the people are met,which isnt that hard when you remove the profit,then the rest loses its power and becomes secondary. National Socialism without the racism is the solution. National Socialism does not rely on constant growth. Its an option,but its not required.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So is growth just an economic law that can not be challenged or are there other way for nations to survive

Originally posted by Sinny
If youi knew anything regarding economics, you would know growth the a key part, and kind of the whole point.

Growth in itself is not the problem. It is the insane drive for exponential growth that is bringing western and developed economies to their knees.

Slower, steadier growth where business's primary objective is to provide essential goods and services to people, where profit represents secondary or even tertiary impetus and where paid work is not seen as the panacea to all of life's hardships, would be more sustainable.

Would slower growth merely mean that bust comes later, that it would just take longer to reach the finite? The planet is self sustaining, self regulating and regenerative. This why I believe slower growth, working in symbiosis with the rest of the natural world, would result in self sustaining economies.

There is indeed a way to have sustainable economic growth with practically no limit in sight. I am talking about growth based on scientific and technological progress. Thats the kind of economic growth we do need, and should pursue vigorously.

Well without growth we'd still be living in mud huts wearing animal skins and hunting with a sharp rock attached to a stick. Additionally as previously mentioned since the population is growing exponentially everything else needs to as well.