I have heard it said that only the mad and economists think that perpetual growth is possible in a finite world.
This graph comes from the Bank of England via the FT:
Is that growth mad?
Is it unreal?
Is it unsustainable?
Is it time economics realised that this cannot continue and ask, in stead, what else is possible?
The answer to all four is yes.
And before you say it has delivered benefits and so is not mad, I'd say two words: climate change. That is Mutually Assured Destruction, and that is MAD.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agreed. And what has been delivered is an ‘economy’ geared to maximising costs, turnover, rate of digging stuff up and setting fire to it in more or less complicated ways and throwing the results into landfill as fast as possible. So minimising whatever headroom we may have left for progressing to some mode of existence within the carrying capacity of our finite substrate.
What did the log scale look like?
Why?
I always like to know what sort of curve the increase on the previous reading delivers. Helps me understand the nature of the thing better.