Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    But the value of new software in real terms is static so no it can't make growth.
    Except it does, the trading of it for money contributes to the GDP, that contribution is growth assuming that it's additional to the previous period. Does that mean that if 1 extra tree is cut down it doesn't represent growth? (Assuming that the reduction in price of the resource due to the extra supply isn't sufficient to keep the total value at $100)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Or they do and they want to change it:erm:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Exactly
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    That's completely meaningless though. Who decides that value? If we have the exact same resources floating about, value is just some abstract thing humans have invented. If you have a totally software-based economy that's completely independent of the world, you're not creating anything, you're simply modifying electromagnetic information. There's only so much value humans can have in things. If you decide that program B is more valuable than program A then that's great, but it's also physically meaningless. That's some abstract human notion, it has no root in physics. That growth is imaginary, it's not real growth. Nothing is actually growing, what's happening is that people are calling steady-state, growth. That doesn't mean it is.
    By that logic, all GDP values are overstated, for one we can slash in excess of 75% off our GDP. It's irrelevant whether the thing being traded is tangible or not, all the system does it measures the flow of money, doesn't really matter what it's for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But the value of new software in real terms is static so no it can't make growth.
    Not only is your claim that "the value of new software in real terms is static" is totally without foundation and completely made up, but I just demonstrated economic growth by way of software.

    The following year Citizen 1 might build a better piece of software that sells for $3. Or he might not, in which case the economy will contract from$102 back to $100.

    But the value is based on what people are willing to pay for it and exploitation of resources is irrelevant in that consideration.

    Furthermore, the ever-increasing turnover of software companies and software's ever-increasing proportion of GDP quite obviously proves wrong your fatuous statement
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    That's completely meaningless though. Who decides that value?
    So we've finally arrived at the point where you get that you don't understand economics.

    The comment about it having no root in physics is hilarious; economics, GDP, money... it's an accounting system, it's a medium of exchange, a way to lubricate commerce. It's not a measurement of physical properties

    Your complaints that it is not linked to how many trees we cut down or how many tonnes of steel we produce underlines that you are stuck in the 19th century
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    By that logic, all GDP values are overstated, for one we can slash in excess of 75% off our GDP. It's irrelevant whether the thing being traded is tangible or not, all the system does it measures the flow of money, doesn't really matter what it's for.
    But it's completely arbitrary... If you've got a steady-state economy then there has to be a human mind to make the statement "I think this is more valuable than that", causing artificial inflation. There's absolutely no physical basis for a growth because nothing is growing. If we have the same number of people in 100 years time as we do now, the human race has the same affinity to give out value than as we do now. If we decide that the GDP is more valuable then than it is now, that's something humans have made up. It's not real growth. It's make-believe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If you accept what those arguments are saying, then you also have to accept that "value" is some arbitrary and meaningless concept that doesn't reflect physical reality. If you use some abstract definition of "value" then sure, "value" can keep growing if someone decides to allow it to keep growing. It's utterly meaningless though. One of those articles asserts that infinite growth is possible in a steady state economy. In a steady state economy, there is no change in the amount of work done. So "value" is therefore completely independent of work, so it can't have any physical basis.
    Value is a human construct. Coal isn't taken out the ground with its value irreversibly attached to it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by young_guns)
    So we've finally arrived at the point where you get that you don't understand economics.

    The comment about it having no root in physics is hilarious; economics, GDP, money... it's an accounting system, it's a medium of exchange, a way to lubricate commerce.

    Your complaints that it is not linked to how many trees we cut down or how many tonnes of steel we produce underlines that you are stuck in the 19th century
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Value is a human construct. Coal isn't taken out the ground with its value irreversibly attached to it.
    If this is all correct, then there's no conflict with what the Green Party is saying. Because according to what you are both claiming, a steady-state system would in fact have growth. So when the Green Party says they're aiming for a no-growth system, that's simply an error in terminology because using your definition of growth, a system using their plan would have growth.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If the greens ever got in it would be the happiest day of my life
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If this is all correct, then there's no conflict with what the Green Party is saying.
    Actually, there is. When the Green Party say they want an economic contraction, they intend what it means in practice; less goods and services produced and therefore less goods and services consumed. That means a real decline in living standards in the aggregate
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually, there is. When the Green Party say they want an economic contraction, they intend what it means in practice; less goods and services produced and therefore less goods and services consumed. That means a real decline in living standards
    Less material goods. If you have a virtual economy based on intangible value, there's no conflict with what they're saying. A virtual and sustainable economy is what the Green Party wants.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Less material goods. If you have a virtual economy based on intangible value, there's no conflict with what they're saying. A virtual and sustainable economy is what the Green Party wants.
    Except for the fact that factors of production have to be put in place, demand for non resource using items has to be increased through wealth (which is inconsistent with an economic contraction) etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Less material goods.
    There is no distinction in GDP, nor have the Greens made that distinction in their policies, you are now simply making it up as you go along.

    The Greens have said they want an economic contraction; less goods and services produced and therefore consumed.

    If anything by restricting material goods, energy supplies and labour saving devices, you will make survival more expensive so fewer people will be able to do those higher-level things like making software or writing plays. More will have to till the fields, for example, because the Greens have rationed how much petrol a farmer has for his tractor.

    A "Green" economy means a darker (in the sense of the amount of lighting), colder, poorer society. That much is clear when the Greens speak not of introducing renewable energy but instead of cutting energy supplies by 80%
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by young_guns)
    There is no distinction in GDP, nor have the Greens made that distinction in their policies, you are now simply making it up as you go along.

    The Greens have said they want an economic contraction; less goods and services produced and therefore consumed.

    If anything by restricting material goods, energy supplies and labour saving devices, you will make survival more expensive so fewer people will be able to do those higher-level things like making software or writing plays. More will have to till the fields, for example, because the Greens have rationed how much petrol a farmer has for his tractor.

    A "Green" economy means a darker (in the sense of the amount of lighting), colder, poorer society. That much is clear when the Greens speak not of introducing renewable energy but instead of cutting energy supplies by 80%
    Restricting material goods isn't a choice we have. We have a choice between reducing our consumption now, or future generations suffering immensely, vastly worse than any kind of suffering a short-term reduction would cause. And a Green economy doesn't mean a darker, colder and poorer society. Cutting energy supplied by 80% is definitely not enough (I'm pretty sure they want more) but that doesn't mean a reduction in effectiveness because we will implement more energy efficient technologies that make better use of that energy in the first place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Restricting material goods isn't a choice we have. We have a choice between reducing our consumption now, or future generations suffering immensely, vastly worse than any kind of suffering a short-term reduction would cause
    That's not fact, that's just unsubstantiated alarmist speculation

    Cutting energy supplied by 80% is definitely not enough (I'm pretty sure they want more)
    And why do the Greens demand cutting energy supplies? If the energy was supplied by renewable sources, then it has no effect on climate change. The only reason to demand that energy supplies be cut, as opposed to increasing the proportion sourced renewably, is if this has less to do with climate change as it has to do with an underlying hatred of consumption

    but that doesn't mean a reduction in effectiveness
    Except that you can't predict what efficiencies we might achieve. And given the Greens economic policies coupled with their swingeing cuts to energy supplies, it in fact would be a darker, colder, poorer society (in every sense)
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's not fact, that's just unsubstantiated alarmist speculation

    And why do the Greens demand cutting energy supplies? If the energy was supplied by renewable sources, then it has no effect on climate change. The only reason to demand that energy supplies be cut, as opposed to increasing the proportion sourced renewably, is if this has less to do with climate change as it has to do with an underlying hatred of consumption

    Except that you can't predict what efficiencies we might achieve. And given the Greens economic policies coupled with their swingeing cuts to energy supplies, it in fact would be a darker, colder, poorer society (in every sense)
    It's not alarmist speculation, it's an irrefutable fact that every academic working in the area would indisputably agree with. All of the data available points in that direction, I ask you to find anything that contradicts that.

    Given that there's already enough resistance as it is to provide even a small proportion of our energy from renewables, I don't see why you're so keen to embrace a 100% renewable energy supply. It would be a lot more inconvenient to people to have a 100% renewable energy supply than to reduce our energy usage by 20% and provide all of that with renewables.

    We already have the efficiencies we need, people just aren't willing to pay for it. Appliances in Germany, for instance, are much more efficient than in the UK because there's the consumer demand for it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's not fact, that's just unsubstantiated alarmist speculation



    And why do the Greens demand cutting energy supplies? If the energy was supplied by renewable sources, then it has no effect on climate change. The only reason to demand that energy supplies be cut, as opposed to increasing the proportion sourced renewably, is if this has less to do with climate change as it has to do with an underlying hatred of consumption
    The world has finite resources FACT!!!!

    Same old tune. The creation of renewables has a carbon footprint right now so if we go Back we can begin to increase green technology with no carbon footprint at all. Also I suggest you look up tge laws of thermodynamics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    It's not alarmist speculation, it's an irrefutable fact that every academic working in the area would indisputably agree with. All of the data available points in that direction, I ask you to find anything that contradicts that.
    You seem to be confused. You are conflating the issue of climate change and renewable energy with resource consumption generally.

    As for the rest, I'll leave it to the good judgment of other TSRians. The vast majority of the population can see this for what it is, and that's what counts
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by young_guns)
    You seem to be confused. You are conflating the issue of climate change and renewable energy with resource consumption generally.

    As for the rest, I'll leave it to the good judgment of other TSRians. The vast majority of the population can see this for what it is, and that's what counts
    What natural non-renewable resource is currently exploited in an environmentally friendly manner? Mineral extraction is one of the biggest energy uses and one of the biggest causes of pollution on the planet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The creation of renewables has a carbon footprint right now so if we go Back we can begin to increase green technology with no carbon footprint at all
    The creation of renewables involves a trivial carbon footprint compared to the savings generated in foregone CO2 emissions.

    There is no reason not to progressively introduce renewables as opposed to cutting energy supplies by 80% unless this is really about the Greens' hatred of consumption

    Also I suggest you look up tge laws of thermodynamics.
    The "laws of thermodynamics"? Don't you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It's clear it's not me who needs to be looking things up;
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.