Albert Bartlett on Growth

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
1

Albert Barlett is a man I hold in very high esteem.

First, for his ability to speak in clear, concise language, which is the hallmark of someone who has mastered their material.

Second, because he sees the obvious and dares to point it out. Let me reframe that: He sees things that are incredibly obvious to others once he points them out. But because these things are most often "hidden in plain view," they are actually noticed by very few.

His work on growth and population deserves the widest attention possible.

Recently, I had a nice email exchange with Dr. Bartlett, and he closed with this:

Dear Chris,

Thanks so much for your very kind letter. I am happy to send you some reprints, which are attachments.

I don't have time right now to write something for publication. I can hardly keep up with the daily work of reading and answering e-mails.

I will sent two or three messages with attachments.

Please feel free to post these if you wish.

With thanks and best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

AL

With that permission, here's one of the articles he sent. It's fantastic. It really puts the lance to one of the most unquestioned assumptions of our day - that being "growth is good."

Growth is neither good nor bad - it merely delivers more of what we already have, but in larger quantities, with higher risks, costs, and complexity. Given this, shouldn't it at least be questioned and challenged?

I'd love to center some of our discussions around this topic.

Enjoy,
Chris


January 29, 2008

WHAT PART OF ARITHMETIC DOES NOT HOLD IN BOULDER?

By Albert A. Bartlett
Printed in the Boulder Daily Camera, February 3, 2008.

It’s time to try again to correct the educationally credentialed but innumerate experts (innumeracy is the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy) who say that growth is inevitable. They fail to recognize that after maturity, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.

The arithmetic is clear. Steady growth produces impossibly large numbers in modest periods of time. SO GROWTH WILL STOP. Referring to Boulder, we have read the innumerate statement “So our choice is not whether we grow, but how we grow.” The authors of this statement would like us to believe that the battle against growth is lost, so our only role is to be the best possible losers. They write that we should give up the efforts to achieve a quiet stability for our community, and in defeat, we should “embrace the principles of Smart Growth.” We can understand this. That’s the game in which they are the big winners.

We must remember that “Smart Growth” and “Dumb Growth” both destroy the environment, but “Smart Growth” destroys the environment with good taste. Frosty Woolridge quotes a writer who points out the stark truth, “Growth is not the answer; it’s the problem.”

The central belief of the growth promotion community seems to be that there is an “…absolute need to create greater population density and more efficient land use within the City” by focusing on “on infill development within existing urban boundaries…”(Camera, Jan.20, 2008) When the promoters tried this tactic on the Washington School neighborhood all of Boulder fought back, saying that we’re not going to become losers in the City’s effort to cram more people into Boulder. The whole City is watching to see if the City Council will continue policies that reflect innumeracy and unsustainability.

The innumerate theme of the promoters is “The Front Range is going to grow whether we like it or not.” If this is true, it is because so many Front Range leaders are active and successful in promoting growth. The Legislature and all manner of public and private regional and local “civic groups” are promoting “economic development” which is the “politically correct” name for “growth.” Predictably, this will produce more well-to-do people, more homeless people, more employed people, more unemployed people, higher average salaries, more people living below the poverty line, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more crime, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more tax revenue, higher taxes, more fiscal problems for state and local governments, more tax limitation measures, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, less reliable utility service, less democracy, more congestion pricing on busy city streets and crowded highways, more unmanageable costs of maintaining public infrastructures, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment.

It’s not clear why the Legislature would think that the people would want all of these known consequences of growth. However, innumeracy reigns. The promoters have demonstrated great skill in getting around minor obstacles such as “the will of the people.”

In the meantime the innumerates act as though gasoline, natural gas and water will always be with us at low cost and in unlimited quantities. Crude oil prices have increased from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to $100 a barrel in 2008. This strongly suggests that the world production of conventional oil has peaked and is starting its inevitable decline, just as was predicted back in 1956. If this rate of increase continues we would look for oil to cost $500 a barrel in another six years. (2014). Natural gas production in North America has peaked, and this accounts for the rapid rise in the price of natural gas which is already creating hardships for some who like to have a warm home or a comfortable workplace in winter. Water shortages and talk of restrictions on water use are frequently in the news.

By their continued promotion of growth, the innumerates are speeding the arrival of painful but predictable shortages and consequent rationing of gasoline, natural gas and water in the Rocky Mountain area. These shortages and the accompanying high prices will remake the urban landscape in ways that are probably not included in current “long-range” planning efforts of the City, County and State.

These problems can’t be solved by a nickel’s worth of “Smart Growth” tacked onto to billions of dollars worth of urban sprawl.

The arithmetic of population, resources and growth is inexorable. The consequences of the arithmetic can’t be avoided by believing that “Wishing will make it so.” (Walt Disney’s First Law) Many years ago an innumerate graduate of the University of Colorado wrote to me, saying that he did not believe that this arithmetic holds in Boulder? What part of the arithmetic of growth is it that the innumerates don’t understand?

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/albert-bartlett-on-growth-2/

2
Chris wrote:

"Albert Barlett is a man I hold in very high esteem.

First for his ability to speak in clear, concise language which are the hallmarks of someone who has mastered their material.

Second because he sees the obvious and dares to point it out. Let me reframe that; he see things that are incredibly obvious once he points them out. But because these things are most often "hidden in plain view", they are actually noticed by very few."

Well, Chris, as far as we're concerned, you just described yourself!
3

Unfortunately, growth is THE American sacred cow. We will not make progress towards resolving the many problems we face–individually or as a nation–until we have slain the cow and fed the flesh to ravenous dogs.

Up until now growth has been the way out of our problems - growing population increases tax revenues so there is always a powerful motivation for governments to encourage growth rather than do any of the hard work of trimming expenses to meet the current fiscal realities. Corporations must grow to satisfy stockholders and they need to demonstrate that they can continue growing every quarter, which has a tendency to eliminate any form of "long range thinking" in boardrooms. Government grows, in spite of endless promises that "drastic cuts will be made," like some horrific cancer that can’t be removed for fear of killing the patient outright, condemming him to a slow, agonizing death instead.

Perhaps, though, in the same way that it is better to tell your child "no" than to acquiesce to yet another demand for more toys, TV time or sweets, it is time to say "no" to more unreasonable demands from the vast sea of unreasonable adults who feel entitled to "more" without having to do any of the heavy lifting themselves or bothering to understand what the consequences of "more" actually are.

I think the only growth we need right now is to "grow up."

Arthur

4

I live near Buffalo, NY, a city very unlike Boulder. It has lost probably 4 to 500,000 population since the 60’s when the steel industry and shipping began to die. Partially this was because of the loss of industry and partially due to a series of unusually incompetent governments. This is one instance in which we should praise incompetent government. The area continues to lose people to sunnier climes although the employer base is relatively stable. There are plenty of good colleges in the area and the city school system has a contrast of some of the best and worse schools in the country.

I’ve read a couple articles in the past couple years that put the local economic doldrums in perspective. Both the water and highway systems were designed in the 50’s with the expectation that population would continue to grow. According to one of those articles, Buffalo has the best water pressure of any city in America, and I can attest that commuting is a breeze, except for those few days a year when we have lake effect snow, but that’s another story. They have been trying to promote some of the city’s attractions, like a Frederick Law Olmstead city and park plan and several Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in addition to a lot of nice architecture, to draw tourists, without much success as far as I can tell. But, apart from some of the problems that accompany poverty everywhere, the city is easy to live in, has a pretty good music scene and excellent museums. Real estate prices have been pretty much unaffected by the boom and bust. I’m pretty sure that Buffalo doesn’t have many of the amenities that Boulder and other boom cities have, but, frankly, I don’t miss them that much.

So, gang, let’s just keep this between us. I don’t want a bunch of people moving here and screwing things up, OK?

 

5

I don't know if anyone has already posted this but I'll go ahead anyway. Albert A. Bartlett's The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See Part 1 of 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58

Greg

6

Bartlett is concise and cogent as ever.

This fundamentalist theology of infinite "growth" (or my preferred term, intensification) and exponential debt truly is insane . (They think that debt curve isn’t going to inevitably topple them backward like a rickety boat trying to ride up a hundred-foot breaking wave.)

Like Bartlett always says, a big part of it is the simple ignorance of arithmetic, part of America’s general anti-intellectualism. (There’s other things like that - "growth" types always insist that water supplies are infinite as well, for example.)

One gets the distinct sense that none of them understands a damn thing about what’s happening to the economy today. On the contrary, almost without exception every politician, economist, pundit and writer assumes this is a temporary glitch in the eternal parade (death march) of growth, which shall be restored shortly.

More and more, I see a stark divide, and divide everyone, into those who have Peak Oil consciousness and those who remain ante-Peak.

Certainly the growth-mongers are all terminal reactionaries, mired in an ideology as bankrupt as their economy.

7

What is it with you people?

We’re born with an instinctive desire to improve our well being. Growth is genetic. You can’t stop it. The cancer in society are those who want to stop it or slow it down. They have this uncurious desire to control their perceived lessers.

Hey guys. Study up on market economics. Because of the price systrem, market societies are adaptive. Prices ration scarce supply with unimited demand. Prices act as a guide to buyers, investors, entrepeneurs and sellers on what appropiate action to take. It’s a simple concept, yet amazingly, poorly understood and often disliked.

There is no telling how long current economic collapse will take to correct itself. That in itself will curtail growth for an indefinite time. Arguments pro and con for growth are ideological, a waste of time.

All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way! If you try to thwart the economic activity of free individuals, you’ll only make a bigger mess.

8

 

Ray,

I would like to question your goal(s) in posting this in this manner.

If your goal was, "to change how people think", then I would propose, humbly, that beginning with something other than "What is it with you people?" would be a good place to start.

Speaking only for myself, when someone asks me "What’s wrong with you?!?", I pretty much close my mind off to whatever is coming next. It’s a defensive mechanism, much like flinching back when someone nearby cocks their arm.

And when you say, "All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way!" I cannot see a way to engage with that sentiment as it clearly states that you’re not expecting, or open to, a response. There’s no room for dialog. So if there’s no room for dialog, then I wonder what the point is? Is it really your expectation that a firmly worded directive will sway minds? Does that work with you?

If, instead, your goal is merely to stir things up, then I would ask "Why?"

I think you’ve got an important view to share but your style leaves me precious little opportunity to wiggle in there and find out more.

While my reaction may not be anywhere close to what you intended, it’s all I’ve got, it was probably counterproductive to your real intent, and I invite you to ponder that conundrum.

 

 

 

9

Hello Ray:
A billionaire investor pointed me to Bartlett when I was discussing peak oil. Peak oil would not be an issue if the population wasn’t 6.5 billion. Would it?
That is one of many peaks that is being stressed by our population.
Personally I would consider myself a "quack" for not knowing or realizing this on my own or sooner and or realizing the effect of exponential growth, I have a LOT of respect for what Bartlett thinks and writes.
I could give a rats a$$ if you called Paulson or Bernanke quacks, but I really am appalled at you calling this mathematician a quack and frankly I see no justification for doing so. None.

10

[quote=cmartenson][quote=Ray Hewitt]
What is it with you people?

We’re born with an instinctive desire to improve our well being. Growth is genetic. You can’t stop it. The cancer in society are those who want to stop it or slow it down.

…

All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way! If you try to thwart the economic activity of free individuals, you’ll only make a bigger mess.

[/quote]

 

Ray,

I would like to question your goal(s) in posting this in this manner.

If your goal was, "to change how people think", then I would propose, humbly, that beginning with something other than "What is it with you people?" would be a good place to start.

Speaking only for myself, when someone asks me "What’s wrong with you?!?", I pretty much close my mind off to whatever is coming next. It’s a defensive mechanism, much like flinching back when someone nearby cocks their arm.

And when you say, "All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way!" I cannot see a way to engage with that sentiment as it clearly states that you’re not expecting, or open to, a response. There’s no room for dialog. So if there’s no room for dialog, then I wonder what the point is? Is it really your expectation that a firmly worded directive will sway minds? Does that work with you?

If, instead, your goal is merely to stir things up, then I would ask "Why?"

I think you’ve got an important view to share but your style leaves me precious little opportunity to wiggle in there and find out more.

While my reaction may not be anywhere close to what you intended, it’s all I’ve got, it was probably counterproductive to your real intent, and I invite you to ponder that conundrum.

[/quote]

Wow, nicely put, Chris.

11

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn121506.html


[quote]1. TERRIFIC CHOICES: A CLEAR MESSAGE ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
Any concern that the economic crisis would soften the resolve of the Obama
administration to deal with the sad state of the environment was swept
away today by the choice of Harvard physicist John Holdren to be
presidential science advisor, and Oregon State marine biologist Jane
Lubchenco to head the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. Both have battled industry opposition to climate
initiatives. Along with Steve Chu as Secretary of Energy they should form
a powerful block of scientists in the Obama administration. It will
almost certainly be the most influence science has had in the White House
since the Eisenhower administration. But we don’t have much time. Let me
tell you what no one else is saying publicly: every step we take to
improve the environment will soon be wiped out by population growth. The
fact is that we are already beyond a sustainable population. We can’t
keep talking in terms of reducing the rate of growth. That’s the second
derivative.[/quote]

 

I'm not as euphoric as Bob Park, but its a step in the right direction. At last, science will have a voice in the White House.

 

Ray

 

[quote]Arguments pro and con for growth are ideological, a waste of time.[/quote]

 

No they aren't, they are science and math.

12

I’m so glad you mentioned Albert Bartlett. Not long after I discovered your crash course, I ran across Bartlett’s "most important video you’ll ever watch" on youtube and was just thinking how you should team up…

He’s incredibly well spoken and has excellent points. Glad to see another thing pointinng people to his ideas.

13

The common thread to economics, as taught in virtually every school of virtually every economic discipline for most of the last century (at least), is that growth is the fundamental goal of economic activity. In almost all cases, two other things are generally assumed as gospel. First, energy and environmental resources, if considered at all, are assumed to be cheap (or free) and essentially limitless (any resource limits will be overcome through substitution or innovation at an appropriate price level). Second, growth is generally defined in terms of production and consumption, always measured by money.

I really don’t know how to address the first issue, since it is so obviously blatantly false that it’s difficult to figure out how to talk to somebody who denies it. It’s kind of a world is not flat argument, but without the ability to sail around the world (or over the horizon and back). Well, at least not without actually just continuing as usual and sailing over the cliff of peak oil, climate change, population collapse (pick your favorite resource limit/impact). Somehow, being able to say "I told you so" is not going to make me feel better. Still, any thoughts on how to get this point into the mainstream (in addition to spreading the Crash Course like a virus :wink: ?

The second assumption is, in a way, more interesting. The problem, in some ways, is that traditional economics focuses on growth of the wrong things. Or, perhaps more accurately, it does not focus on enough of the right things. Instead of focusing on growth in consumption, production, money, and standards of living, perhaps economists (and society in general) should be focusing on growth in quality of life (which, as Douthwaite and others point out, is not the same as standard of living). Instead of focusing on how much we have has "consumers" (frankly, a telling and somewhat insulting label), we should be focusing on how much better we can be as human beings. If growth is measured not in terms of money (quantity), but in terms of the growth of the individuals, of societal happiness and satisfaction, of knowledge and art …in short, in terms of quality of life … perhaps then you might be able to actually create an society with sustainable "growth". The economy would be based on stability with relation to consumption/production and our environment, but with growth in the knowledge, satisfaction, and happiness of the human beings in that society.

Not new ideas, I know, and certainly not original, but they seem pertinent to the conversation.

Brian

14
No they aren't, they are science and math.
Oh please? Human activity can't be quantified with any degree of reliability. You wind up making the same mistakes establishmen economists make. The same ones who thought they could manage the money supply for a world economy. I said before that people adjust according to market forces. You can't control them and the idea of proselyting will get you nowhere. If you try command-and-control, then you would be resorting to oppression. That's failed everwhere it was tried. There are limits to what you can do with science and math. And this is one of them.
15

What ever he says is all true but totally useless. Consider how Boulder was before the Europeans came and exploited it - when the native Indians controlled it. According to his argument, all these people should simply pack up and leave - including him, which he conveniently ignores!

His drivel about "maturity" is totally subjective. Ask any native Indian and he will tell you exactly what Al blathers - that all this is "excessive growth" and so on. If you want to control growth, go to China, the govt. tells you how many children to have and what parts of China you can inhabit as a "citizen".

All of these so called experts conveniently forget how this all started - humans looting and thieving other races. For example you can see how gold was looted in South America by the Spanish who got looted by the Brits and who got looted by the Americans in WW2. You just have to realize that the whole "modern civilization" is one big looting operation - and accept it.

If you do not want to be a part of all this, become an ascetic and repent for your previous karma!

 

16

Ive just finished dr Bartletts "most important video you’ll ever watch" series on youtube (thanks Greg) and one thing that struck me about the population side of his argument was that he is a mathmatician, I dont think he has any room in his models for chaos or how the talking monkeys tend to do things, they get emotional, sometimes they dont fit mathamatical models, for instance;

I come from a long line of Londoners, my grandparents im told, had an average of 15 brothers or sisters each! my parents each came from families of 7 kids, my parents kids so far - 3 of us, all over 40, have so far produced 1 child

Im not saying there isnt a population problem, clearly there is. What I am trying to say is that there is something here that doesnt fit into the maths. Im pretty sure that the record of births in my family is fairly common. It would seem that (and this is my guess) that as places become more crowded and hence more stressful, families break down, realationships get harder and people just change priorites, live on their own. None of the people I know in london want families. I think they would if they lived in the countryside though. There seems to be a natural system here that stops us multiplying a long long time before we are standing shoulder to shoulder.

Sure my home town is crowded, very crowded but i dont think its from the locals birthrates, there has been massive immigration which has pushed out the indigenous population as the levels grew. I doubt he population of London will grow much more even if we didnt have the 3 E’s. I also dont think for a minute we limit our multiplication for sound reasoning, but we do it because things j(out emotions) ust dont really allow it, long before we are at anywhere near the levels in Dr B’s movies. Only self replicating robots would reproduce to those crazy levels.

You cant argue with the logic in the energy part of the movie though, hes a smart guy for sure but sometimes academics can miss the crazy ways and emotions of the funny little talking monkeys. I hope Dr B has

thats my 1.34 UK pence anyway, im off to bed, g’night all Yell (tired)

barrt

17

Bartlett, Ray Hewitt, O.J. Simpson and Mark Fuhrman

I see a similarity in reasoning between 1) Bartlett’s presentation (I just watched all 8 parts) and Ray Hewitt’s statements, along with reactions to Hewitt’s statements, and 2) O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, Mark Fuhrman’s testimony, and the defense attorney’s claims that Mark Fuhrman was a racist. TV pundits would talk about all the evidence against OJ, defence attorney’s would scream that Fuhrman was a racist (therefore he probably planted evidence).

I believe it was Anne Coulter (bombshell blonde, right-wing author and commentator, and woman of my dreams) who said the following: Maybe both things are true. Mark Fuhrman is a racist, and O.J. Simpson killed his wife.

I don’t agree completely with Hewitt, and I don’t believe Bartlett is a quack, but I do agree that market economics does stop, or at least delay, the bad things that happen. Bartlett ALSO believes this, and he noted it at least two places in his lecture.

As things become more scarce, prices increase, demand decreases, and an equilibrium price is met. Always, except when the guh-ment (government) interferes. Bartlett mentioned how the bell curve of peak oil moved to the right and said it was "probably due to the Arab oil embargo". And as I write this, I can no longer recall the second comment he made. But we can also see today that oil consumption has gone down this year due to increased prices. And, those increased prices have brought worldwide production of other goods down as well.

None of this changes the fact that oil will run out. But supply/demand economics DOES, and WILL slow down the growth of oil consumption and will also lead to a decrease in oil consumption as all of us find ways to adapt to using less of that which will continue to go up in price. Oil consumption will then start to decrease as fewer can afford it, and the right side of the bell curve will be extended to the right many more standard deviations.

Bartlett’s facts and figures all seem correct to me, but he doesn’t talk about what will change, in terms of human behavior, after peak oil is reached. The purpose of his lecture is to show the effects of compound growth of population and resource utilization. He does not talk about the period following peak oil or peak coal, and if he did, I’m sure he would talk about how market forces would cause the prices of scarce resources to rise and rise, and that would lead to behavioral changes by people to consume less and less. It will also lead to the discovery of other forms of energy, or at least improvements in efficiency of other forms (solar, wind, tidal, ground source, etc.). No silver bullets here, but all of these things together (reduced consumption paired with new and improved forms of energy) will buy us more time.

None of this thinking is in conflict with Martensen’s Crash Course, either. Correct me if I am wrong, Chris. The whole point of Martensen, and Bartlett, is that we are at, or near, the peak standard of living. That doesn’t mean we’re going to crash and burn. It means that energy costs are going to rise and the cost of production and transport of everything will rise in the coming decades, so our standard of living will come down. We will learn to make do with less. God, I’m sounding like Jimmy Carter, and that makes me want to throw up, but that is the message of peak oil.

Yes, we will run out of oil and coal and copper and uranium. And yes, market economics will come into play that will cause us to continue to reduce our use of those scarce resources and either find alternatives to them, or just use less of them as prices rise. This does not change the fact that eventually they will be used up, but it does extend the amount of time greatly, and during that time, the world will come to understand the problem and the greatest minds will come together to try to find alternatives. None of us here - none of us - can know when the last drop of oil will come out of the ground or whether solar technology will double or triple in efficiency in our lifetimes. The only thing we can truly know from all the graphs and data are that the next couple of decades are going to be very much unlike the last two and we are going to need to learn how to adapt.

As for me, I’ve done many things already in order to adapt. First, I moved from the suburbs of a big city to the mountains of western Maryland where I have ten acres of land and multiple water sources. Second, since I am an online retailer who sells mostly gas fireplaces and heaters, I have changed my product mix to favor heating sources that do not require electricity. Third, I have vastly increased the number of products I sell that cater to the preparedness community - primarily kerosene cookstoves, kerosene lanterns, water filters that remove bacteria (so you can use rain water or water from streams to drink), solar powered radios, etc. This market segment doubled in 2007 and doubled again in 2008. Fourth, I converted my home’s heat from fuel oil to wood, using a high-efficiency wood boiler (85% efficient) that is environmentally friendly. Fifth, we are starting a food storage program that will be sufficient to get us through short term interruptions in the food distribution channels. Sixth, we are investing in silver and gold as a hedge against inflation and possibly as a bartering tool.

And seventh, I am carefully watching and reading and studying websites such as Chris’s so I can try to keep a step ahead of the crowds.

My best to all of you. I haven’t posted before, but I do read the website daily.

John Squires, Friendsville Maryland

 

 

 

18

Chris

You are right about my strong words, but I got your attention. Now let’s discuss Bartlett and his followers such as you.

I maintain that if people have the freedom to adjust to their economic circumstances, they will adjust in a manner they deem positive to their self interests. This premise is not an ideal; it’s fundamental to human nature. Yes, they’ll make mistakes and some will be dishonest. "Get out of the way" means don’t interfere. Our economy is in the state it is in because of an excess of intervention in the market.

I see a bad case of scientism on this site and it’s inadequate for the tasks assigned to it when human nature is involved. The best minds on Wall Street used science and math, and I don’t have to tell you how badly they screwed up.

Beyond keeping us informed about the economic collapse, what do you expect to accomplish in the energy and resource arena? In the scheme of a world economy, this prozelytizing amounts to nothing except play into the hands of statist scaremongers. As I see it, the imperative here should be personal economic survival, not saving mankind. Christians have been on that one for 2,000 years.

 

19

Bartlet’s first paragraph sets the tone. Let’s examine the impact of his implications.

It’s time to try again to correct the educationally credentialed but
innumerate experts (innumeracy is the mathematical equivalent of
illiteracy) who say that growth is inevitable. They fail to recognize
that after maturity, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.

He shows no understanding of human nature. In fact he shows contempt for it. Economies grow because the masses are always trying to improve their lives; this is biological. He equates that with obesity and cancer. He implies we should not get educated, we should not create new technologies, we should not be creating new businesses, we should not be productive; we should not save and invest. Because if we do, those activitiies stimulate growth.

There is a close parallel in the Bible were Adam ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge. So God sentenced mankind to work for punishment. I submit that environmentalism as much as religion, are antisocial.

20

Yes, Mr Hewitt, some of us also ascribe to the strength of market economics, but I think you are forgetting one little reality: that nasty concept of externalities.

Externalities abound in real world market economies of every type. You write as if our world markets are perfectly efficient, operating in a vacuum devoid of externalities. Well, guess what, reality "is what it is." Liberal democracy is all about applying externalties where the collective "good" is thought to be maximized. If you want the mathematics of this, then go to the revolutionary work of Nobel winner John Nash.

Now the interesting part that I’m confident Dr. Martensen would agree with. The Federal Reserve Banking System itself is a marvellous example of a market externality created to serve as a lender of last resort, which incidentally is a mathematical requirement of fractional reserve banking. JP Morgan served as this lender immediately prior to the Fed’s inception. The concept of Central Banking spread as a collective good throughout the world quickly and has served its role for nearly a century. It has served as a manipulator of the true free market in money and credit. Because the Bankers make money by loaning money, the best way to grow earnings in to increase debt. This is done chiefly by creating the concept that inflation is the most desirable economic mode as long as inflation is kept in a 2%-4% per annum range. Inflation at a sustained low rate promotes debt: consumer, corporate, and governmental.

In this way, they are in turn promoting a perpetually growing monetary base. TO INFINITY IF NEED BE. In this manner, Central Banking with set inflation indeed does create a situation where a monetary base has a mathemtically unlimited supply. The only instance where this is bad is if they mismatch the correct rate of growth and you get a credit bubble. But, this is not to say that supply and demand for money itself in this fiat system in any way is constrained by a finite supply in the same sense as other natural resources, such as what Dr. Bartlett was talking about.

I highlight this specific point to make a more general one: substantial external forces created and maintained by liberal political thought will forever skew "true" market economics. You cannot believe that market forces rule the day in these markets where external forces control it. I hope the monetary example proves this, at least for that market.

"There is no telling how long current economic collapse will take to
correct itself. That in itself will curtail growth for an indefinite
time" you say.

I say that the Fed will view the ‘solution’ is to expand the monetary base to fill any holes created by capital bank losses. Growth in the monetary base will not be curtailed.