Economics and growth
---Warren D. Smith 2000-------

One thing I've noticed (and this is something I've
had in mind to do myself if I ever do write an economics
paper, which maybe is not too likely) is that economists
have this obsession with growth. They think things grow
5%/year  or whatever. Everything is discounted versus time.
Whole systems are based on this assumption, like banks,
investment plans, pension plans, corporate plans, etc.

Well, bullshit. See, exponential growth cannot continue forever or
even very long. We are presently in a transient period of human
history where it is happening. It will end. I think all this growth is
mainly correlated to population growth. For example: why do
investments go up, say 2% per year (after inflation)? Well, simply buy
a piece of land.  Do nothing with it. Human population is increasing
at about 2% per year.  Therefore the demand for your land is
increasing by 2% per year, but the supply is not increasing.

If human population were to stop increasing (and it will - the only
question is whether it will be the hard way or the easy way) for the
first time in history, then real estate prices presumably would stop
increasing also (also for the first time in history).

So... the thing that should be studied is: what will economics be like
when the growth stops?  I think it will be a lot nearer to a zero sum
game.  Why do most economists completely ignore the obvious?

In this connection, it was
interesting to see a Nobel lecture by some economist claiming how
5%/year growth in "real wages" had been continuing since the "ancient
Greeks" and there is no reason to think it won't do so forever. How rosy.
What a twit. It is amazing how one can win a Nobel prize
in economics and yet be unable to do grade school arithmetic: note
  1.05^2000 = 2391102204613552276339775255766436389434046.3.
So, I guess that Ancient Greek was earning about
  10^(-37) of today's dollars
as his annual salary.