6 ms·

There's an underlying assumption that economical growth has anything to do with physical limits. Economical growth is a lie we tell ourselves so that innovation

There's an underlying assumption that economical growth has anything to do with physical limits. Economical growth is a lie we tell ourselves so that innovation has its incentives, while everything else that's there because it must be there (because it will always have a demand), such as energy (but also food, real estate, etc.) just piggybacks with a similar 'fake growth' that really arises only from the fact these things are just as valuable as before. The threat for the lack of supply is just enough to keep businesses that can't really 'grow' still grow. It will still be exponential growth so long as the leading innovation companies are growing and everyone else is just corrected for inflation.

lutorm 7y ago
Yeah, as far as I understand, there's nothing preventing you and me just trading the same money back and forth at ever increasing speed, creating economic "growth" without physical limits.
- sbov 7y ago
  Taxes.
- drdeca 7y ago
  There are physical limits on how fast you can do that. Bremermann's limit, (or some extension of it?), says that the minimum amount of time needed for a system with average energy E to change to an orthogonal state, is inversely proportional to E (specifically, pi * h_bar, all divided by 2E ). So, assuming that “I have the money” and “you have the money” are orthogonal (collections of) states, then there is a maximum rate at which the system can switch between those states. You might say “well, what if we just count the number of transactions that ‘should’ have happened, instead of counting the number of actual events where the money changes hands”, but that seems to obviously not reflect actual benefit? If me and another person turn away from you, and then turn back, and claim that we exchanged ownership of a dollar bill I’m holding 2^64 times while we were facing away from you, the obvious response would be “no, you didn’t.”.
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    Of course, we've seen a similar type of fiction already in the history of economics. "This piece of paper represents a chunk of gold!" "No, it doesn't."
    - drdeca 7y ago
      “Represents” is a tricky word. Though, whether one can exchange a particular paper for a particular amount of gold is not a matter of pure imagination.
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
The less cynical interpretation is that "real goods and services" captures the value people derive from them, rather than some objective measure like "energy consumption". There's no innate reason why we can't figure out more and more valuable ways to do things pretty much indefinitely.
- bshipp 7y ago
  Indeed. Take a look at cars, for example. My little 2.0L engine makes more power than a 1970's V8 behemoth could have dreamt of, while simultaneously getting fantastic fuel mileage with minimal pollutants (in comparison). It's by no means perfect, but by any objective measure it's providing me with more value at a lower energy cost. Energy cost to operate, energy cost to build, energy cost to maintain. And that trend is most certainly not going to reverse any time soon.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    There is a physical limit to the efficiency of a heat engine though. If your powertrain is 25% efficient, you can double it to 50%. But if it's 50%, you cannot double it to 100% unless the engine is operating at a temperature of absolute zero. You're going to reach a point- and current model cars are probably just about there- where the engine is operating about as efficiently as the laws of physics permit, and then you're not going to make further progress. Just google "Carnot cycle" and you can learn more.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      >- and current model cars are probably just about there- Very true, in order to get more progress, one would have to develop systems that are sufficiently different and more efficient at some level which may be odds with how we currently allocate resources.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Such as series hybrids and electric cars. (Dropping complex transmission for batteries, but using a more efficient engine.) At some point though friction against road and minimum weight for safety and comfort come into play, and once you optimize these you end up with a train. :) It's the same problem electronics face right now, when they really butt into quantum physics and consequently have huge yield issues - and you can scale horizontally (more transistors) only for subset of problems.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
So a cure for a disease is just some 'big economic lie'? You started off right (i.e. it's not about material limits) but then I think you missed that material value can be created out of thin air. As long as humans are innovating and improving their conditions, then 'growth' as we understand it continues. The iPhone is not 'great' because of the amount of physical material we put into it. The numbers we put growth it are a function of other, relative things, but the fact remains that value is being created.

lutorm 7y ago

Yeah, as far as I understand, there's nothing preventing you and me just trading the same money back and forth at ever increasing speed, creating economic "growth" without physical limits.

sbov 7y ago
Taxes.
drdeca 7y ago
There are physical limits on how fast you can do that. Bremermann's limit, (or some extension of it?), says that the minimum amount of time needed for a system with average energy E to change to an orthogonal state, is inversely proportional to E (specifically, pi * h_bar, all divided by 2E ). So, assuming that “I have the money” and “you have the money” are orthogonal (collections of) states, then there is a maximum rate at which the system can switch between those states. You might say “well, what if we just count the number of transactions that ‘should’ have happened, instead of counting the number of actual events where the money changes hands”, but that seems to obviously not reflect actual benefit? If me and another person turn away from you, and then turn back, and claim that we exchanged ownership of a dollar bill I’m holding 2^64 times while we were facing away from you, the obvious response would be “no, you didn’t.”.
- sdenton4 7y ago
  Of course, we've seen a similar type of fiction already in the history of economics. "This piece of paper represents a chunk of gold!" "No, it doesn't."
  - drdeca 7y ago
    “Represents” is a tricky word. Though, whether one can exchange a particular paper for a particular amount of gold is not a matter of pure imagination.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

The less cynical interpretation is that "real goods and services" captures the value people derive from them, rather than some objective measure like "energy consumption". There's no innate reason why we can't figure out more and more valuable ways to do things pretty much indefinitely.

bshipp 7y ago
Indeed. Take a look at cars, for example. My little 2.0L engine makes more power than a 1970's V8 behemoth could have dreamt of, while simultaneously getting fantastic fuel mileage with minimal pollutants (in comparison). It's by no means perfect, but by any objective measure it's providing me with more value at a lower energy cost. Energy cost to operate, energy cost to build, energy cost to maintain. And that trend is most certainly not going to reverse any time soon.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  There is a physical limit to the efficiency of a heat engine though. If your powertrain is 25% efficient, you can double it to 50%. But if it's 50%, you cannot double it to 100% unless the engine is operating at a temperature of absolute zero. You're going to reach a point- and current model cars are probably just about there- where the engine is operating about as efficiently as the laws of physics permit, and then you're not going to make further progress. Just google "Carnot cycle" and you can learn more.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    >- and current model cars are probably just about there- Very true, in order to get more progress, one would have to develop systems that are sufficiently different and more efficient at some level which may be odds with how we currently allocate resources.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Such as series hybrids and electric cars. (Dropping complex transmission for batteries, but using a more efficient engine.) At some point though friction against road and minimum weight for safety and comfort come into play, and once you optimize these you end up with a train. :) It's the same problem electronics face right now, when they really butt into quantum physics and consequently have huge yield issues - and you can scale horizontally (more transistors) only for subset of problems.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

So a cure for a disease is just some 'big economic lie'? You started off right (i.e. it's not about material limits) but then I think you missed that material value can be created out of thin air. As long as humans are innovating and improving their conditions, then 'growth' as we understand it continues. The iPhone is not 'great' because of the amount of physical material we put into it. The numbers we put growth it are a function of other, relative things, but the fact remains that value is being created.