Economics Question

[InWithBothFeet]

Anyone have a formal background in Economics? I have a (stupid?) question.

Why is the constant growth of an economy essential? If you have a stable population, and sufficient manufacturing and resources to maintain that population, why is growth necessary? Seems like with finite resources (population, raw materials, land, manufacturing capability) that constant growth isn't something sustainable in the long term. It occurred to me that a balance of population to resource expenditure would be the ideal instead of growth.

 

[Snook]

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that companies/shareholders/etc. will always want more money. I could be wrong, though.

 

[mikethompson]

My guess is that no government wants to be on the hook for not having any economic growth.

 

[Philosophical Smoke]

I'm not an economist, but through a lot of reading, growth seems to be a fairly modern construct. Govts used to be more about stability than constant growth and constant growth isn't realistic. Everything cycles including economies.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Anyone have a formal background in Economics? I have a (stupid?) question.

Why is the constant growth of an economy essential? If you have a stable population, and sufficient manufacturing and resources to maintain that population, why is growth necessary? Seems like with finite resources (population, raw materials, land, manufacturing capability) that constant growth isn't something sustainable in the long term. It occurred to me that a balance of population to resource expenditure would be the ideal instead of growth.

Waaaaay too much to unpack there, only going to get all sorts of understandably superficial analysis and only going to venture into that which is necessarily political. Could go on for a few pages on what you mean or is meant by "constant" or "growth", the defined limits of whatever "economy" you are talking about and the assumption that as applied to whatever you think you are talking about "essential" is even valid as a starting point. And that's leaving aside all that is in your "surmise" that follows.

Grab some books - read 'em!

 

[Streeper541]

Waaaaay too much to unpack there, only going to get all sorts of understandably superficial analysis and only going to venture into that which is necessarily political. Could go on for a few pages on what you mean or is meant by "constant" or "growth", the defined limits of whatever "economy" you are talking about and the assumption that as applied to whatever you think you are talking about "essential" is even valid as a starting point.

Grab some books - read 'em!

I agree with Hawkeye.
I used to teach senior Economics. There's a lot to unpack.
Suffice it to say, you're onto something... everything is finite, and that sir, is the basis of Economics.

 

[warren]

Simply, the drive for profit means businesses are most always looking to increase the "bottom line." Sometimes they must lower expectations because of economic fluctuations. Successful companies, including Mom and Pops must be fleet afoot, ever adjusting but, growth is usually what companies strive for. Sometimes they can only "hunker down" and try to survive. Owning/running a business is not for the weak!

 

[makhorkasmoker]

Anyone have a formal background in Economics? I have a (stupid?) question.

Why is the constant growth of an economy essential? If you have a stable population, and sufficient manufacturing and resources to maintain that population, why is growth necessary? Seems like with finite resources (population, raw materials, land, manufacturing capability) that constant growth isn't something sustainable in the long term. It occurred to me that a balance of population to resource expenditure would be the ideal instead of growth.

The field, I believe, is called ecological economics. You might check out the works of Herman Daly

 

[InWithBothFeet]

So I take it there is no concise, complete and accurate response in 32.8 words or less?

 

[sablebrush52]

Anyone have a formal background in Economics? I have a (stupid?) question.

Why is the constant growth of an economy essential? If you have a stable population, and sufficient manufacturing and resources to maintain that population, why is growth necessary? Seems like with finite resources (population, raw materials, land, manufacturing capability) that constant growth isn't something sustainable in the long term. It occurred to me that a balance of population to resource expenditure would be the ideal instead of growth.

I’m not an economist, but I listen to several podcasts by economists as well as reading books by economists.
Put 5 economists in a room and you will end up with 50 differing opinions. “Growth” is measured in different ways, casting chicken bones is popular, and there’s a bit of hocus-pocus to all of it.

But, resources being finite, there will be a limit and we’ll just lie about it.

 

[Copperhead]

I'm no economist, but I am a bitter angry cynic.

 

[sablebrush52]

I'm no economist, but I am a bitter angry cynic.

So, you ARE an economist!

 

[romaso]

Read some Julian Simon. The one infinite resource is the human mind, so you want to find or create a new more efficient way of doing or creating something. Look at Borlaug's (spelling?) contributions to increased agricultural production on the same land, with higher yield, more resistant crops. You want increased productivity. You can have increased growth with the same inputs if you are more efficient.

 

[MisterBadger]

I heard an apocryphal story once about Che Guevara: just after the Cuban Revolution (so I was told), Fidel Castro called a meeting of all the leading co-revolutionaries and announced: "I need an economist. Is any of you an economist?" Che was somewhere at the back, misheard Castro to say "Is any of you a communist?" Che put his hand up, and was instantly given the job as Minister Of Industries. Seriously, I'm neither a communist nor an economist, but I reckon it's all smoke and mirrors. You can only produce so much stuff for people to consume because (as hads already been pointed out) commodities and markets are finite, which is why, I think, we have resorted to manufacturing and marketing unicorns like Bitcoin, commodity futures and currency exchange. But I'm a peasant: what do I know?: ask me about potatoes, and I can be a lot more helpful.

 

[InWithBothFeet]

But I'm a peasant: what do I know?: ask me about potatoes, and I can be a lot more helpful.

Ok, why is it if I fill my instant pot with potatoes, they're done in 18 minutes, but if I put 2-3 in there it takes 25?

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Ok, why is it if I fill my instant pot with potatoes, they're done in 18 minutes, but if I put 2-3 in there it takes 25?

Unlike stoves and magic potatoes, the laws of physics must continue to exist in your pot!

 

[MisterBadger]

Same reason your freezer or refrigerator is more efficient if you keep it filled. All to do with convection media efficiency (air, water, or more potatoes, in the case of your instant pot). The same will apply to any root vegetable or tuber you care to put in it: while the potato is in many ways a unique vegetable it conforms humbly, as Hawkeyelinus said, to the laws of physics. But if you wish to cook a small number of potatoes in a big pot and have them cook quicker, you need to select the right variety. Generally speaking, floury potatoes (that is, with a high dry matter content - maincrops, mostly) tend to need shorter cooking times than waxy ones (which tend to be earlies). But frankly, most potatoes are better steamed, than boiled. Hope that helps.

 

[InWithBothFeet]

Same reason your freezer or refrigerator is more efficient if you keep it filled. All to do with convection media efficiency (air, water, or more potatoes, in the case of your instant pot). The same will apply to any root vegetable or tuber you care to put in it: while the potato is in many ways a unique vegetable it conforms humbly, as Hawkeyelinus said, to the laws of physics. But if you wish to cook a small number of potatoes in a big pot and have them cook quicker, you need to select the right variety. Generally speaking, floury potatoes (that is, with a high dry matter content - maincrops, mostly) tend to need shorter cooking times than waxy ones (which tend to be earlies). But frankly, most potatoes are better steamed, than boiled. Hope that helps.

I am steaming them.... couple cups of water and a trivet (or something similar in the bottom to keep the potatoes out of the water. Pressure Steaming?

 

[fireground_piper]

So I take it there is no concise, complete and accurate response in 32.8 words or less?

If you are not growing, you are shrinking. Pick the one you would like to be responsible for.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Basically because people are being born.

If you stop babies from being born, then no growth is required.

Maybe that's what you're getting at.

Who says it's not sustainable?

What is the long term?