Hello Ernie,

The Green/anti-growth spectrum is a major obstacle. After this recession, my 401k and other investments need to recoup their losses so that I will be able to retire, and the jobs I'm suited for will have to stop going overseas so that I can remain employed until such a time as I can afford to retire. I don't see that the current administration is interested in any of that. They could care less.

The next decade is too late for me.

David
 

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”--Thomas Jefferson

 

 

On 1/11/2013 4:10 PM, Dr. Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
Hi David,

On Jan 9, 2013, at 8:29 PM, David R. Block <[email protected]> wrote:

Growth kind of has to happen as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate. 

Absolutely. Though, that's only going to be true for another 30 years, or possibly less -- after that world population will decline. Which is a huge issue nobody much seems to be talking about.

Still, the question is *how* to measure that growth.  GDP is a useful but imperfect metric. 


Unfortunately, most alternatives tend towards the Green/anti-growth spectrum:


Here's some more thoughtful alternatives:


This problem is related to the Clothesline Paradox that geeks have been talking about recently:


This seems like a difficult but solvable problem, and one that might even gain political momentum in the next decade.

-- Ernie P.

--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to