The world without petrol and the idea of economic growth

[Auditor #9]

On another thread here concerning world population, the videos below (they are a series of academic lectures by Albert Bartlett) were mentioned and they very dramatically deal with depleting world resources by analyzing our view of economic growth as a favourable thing. Might sound boring but they'll grab your attention if you sit down and watch them with enough caffeine in your system.

Economic growth be it 5 or 7% or even less will lead, he says, to rapid depletion of world resources in a very short time. He deals with oil which is particularly scary because our world is very dependent on petrol and oil as we all know.

There's no doubt (or is there?) that it will run out and I'm wondering what if anything is envisioned of a world after petrol? Are we getting a free lunch now which will be gone within 10 or 15 years or is that scaremongering? Will oil last longer? Even if it lasts 40 years the thirtysomething generation now will have to deal with a massive crisis in their (our) lifetimes. It sounds like it will take massive adjustments - cars could change or at least reduce in number among other things - or will there be technofixes that will keep us motoring at current rates forever?

Behind all this is the idea of economic growth being a positive thing. Do we need to redefine growth? Is there any way we can keep something of our current lifestyles and continue to 'grow' economically?

What are your views?

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9 ... re=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9Ig ... re=related

Parts 4-8 are to be found in youtube.

[Pidge]

I'm just into the second video. I'm not a maths person, but this is amazing.

[ibis]

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that capitalism requires economic growth to balance its concentrating tendency, and capitalist societies to provide a tomorrow "better" than today...in theory, you could run a capitalist system in a zero-sum economy, so long as the business failures balanced the business successes.

[Squire Allworthy]

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that capitalism requires economic growth to balance its concentrating tendency, and capitalist societies to provide a tomorrow "better" than today...in theory, you could run a capitalist system in a zero-sum economy, so long as the business failures balanced the business successes.

I always thought that interest on money borrowed had a hand in creating a need for growth.

[Auditor #9]

Whatever economic jargon and terminology and ideology we use at present won't we have to start revising all definitions soon in the scenario of depleting/depleted resources? Imagine the world very suddenly on the brink of having no oil ..? That brink is very grimly illustrated by the bacteria in the bottle during those lectures.

Will we have to start using MadMax economics fairly soon or what?

EDIT: Wed, 20th Feb. Oil at $101 from the thread below
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t= ... sc&start=0

[Squire Allworthy]

Will we have to start using MadMax economics fairly soon or what?

Have we not got there already? War as an economic policy?

[Auditor #9]

[quote=Squire Allworthy]

Will we have to start using MadMax economics fairly soon or what?

Have we not got there already? War as an economic policy?[/quote:cvvijo11]
Are you serious? Are you talking about the States only? because the EU hasn't been convulsed by war for a while excepting Yugoslavia, unless we're at it overseas in Africa or somewhere. Do you really think there is an ideology of war as an economic parameter or engine?

[ibis]

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that capitalism requires economic growth to balance its concentrating tendency, and capitalist societies to provide a tomorrow "better" than today...in theory, you could run a capitalist system in a zero-sum economy, so long as the business failures balanced the business successes.

I always thought that interest on money borrowed had a hand in creating a need for growth.

I think you're right. The basic argument is that if I have €x, I won't bother to invest it if, on balance, I'm more likely to lose money than gain it.

In an expanding economy I am more likely to gain than lose (by roughly the amount of the growth), which encourages everyone to invest any money they have, rather than leaving it in my sock drawer. Money is therefore put to work, rather than simply holing up.

In a contracting economy, of course, you're more likely to lose money on investment than gain it, and the value of money itself is likely to rise - so the sensible thing to do is hold onto your money rather than lend it out.

It's almost impossible to run a capitalist economy at balance...

Anyway, that's my Disney version.

[Auditor #9]

I suppose what I might be trying to ask is can we have 'growth' without depletion of resources, or is that an oxymoron?

[ibis]

I suppose what I might be trying to ask is can we have 'growth' without depletion of resources, or is that an oxymoron?

That seems impossible - although it is possible for us all to get individually wealthier without depletion of renewable or recyclable resources. Non-renewables, though, we deplete whether we're expanding or contracting. As far as we know, no new oil, gas, or coal is being created.