The economy may hold on until November

[cthulu2016]

I have my fingers crossed, daily, that the improving economy will be a fixed idea in the public mind come November. The economy is, however, not likely to be improving come November.

In an economy with real growth mortgage rates and bond yields and the civilian labor force participation rate should not be continuing downward, which they are. It is apparent that we are no going to get any recovery quarters of 7 or 8% GDP growth (annualized), or even many new jobs above the rate of population increase.

There is an absence of contraction (which is good) but no recovery. No rebound. Litle lost ground is being made up (except in the stock market.)

And the Eurozone is, as we speak, entering recession. No merely flat, but actual GDP contraction.

But the economy in politics is a matter of perception and there is a 50-50% chance that the general sense of improving conditions will persist through November before rolling over.

Either way, none of this is the Democrat's fault in any way. There is nothing Obama could have done in the last 12 months to change things as they stand today.

[bhikkhu]

1. Keeping in mind that a zero-growth, sustainable ecomony is a real long-term goal

if we are going to survive on this planet as a species anywhere similar to how we are now

So what needs to be fixed is people's expectations and perceptions. I know - "good luck with that idea". People tend to not change their ways of thinking; but if you look at perceptual changes over time, those with backwards or poorly adapted or self-destructive worldviews get replaced, inevitably, by other people.

[cthulu2016]

2. I ask this without snark...

What would the human population of a zero-growth sustainable world be, and assuming that population is different from that of a growth-oriented economy, how would we get there?

I don't know and am interested in what folks have theorized.

It seems at first blush that a zero-growth economy must have zero population growth or else constant substantial increases in efficiencies.

[Fumesucker]

3. It's going to be a race to see if technology can save us before it kills most of us..

Going backwards isn't really a significant option I think, you can't unscramble an egg.

It seems to me that in some ways the problems are more social and political than technological but the technological problems are probably more amenable to actual solutions.

[bhikkhu]

5. Columbia suggested 2 billion awhile back

...which could be attained in 3 generations or so, without war, starvation, disease, etc, if birthrates slowed to about where Italy or Japan are at now.

That's a guess as to how many people could live in reasonable prosperity on the planet, but based on all sorts of uncertain variables and unknowns. 2 billion is a reasonable guess, and reasonably attainable without all the doomsday stuff that tends to get attached to the topic.

There are plenty of other studies that have been done that say around 1-4 billion, and other that put it lower, depending on how well we might want to live, and how much will be left after the latest generation gets through.

The general unavoidable basis of the conversation is that the planet is finite and resources are limited, so resources/population at some point becomes a very problematic equation. Other species will reproduce until misery or starvation becomes the limit to numbers; I'd like to think we could do better.

[B Calm]

4. Many economic experts are saying

2012 is going to be a good year. So far they been right!!