What Will Power Growth
It seems like as more and more time passes by, the following question is something that is going to be felt more acutely. In different variations.
“What is going to power growth in a sustainable sense?”
Often, I have let my thoughts be known that: * The mechanisms via which we (as a species) are converting nature into wealth is not sustainable. * As well, generally speaking, I have been critical of a model whereby the labour pool is artificially inflated in order to provision jobs.
Related to the former, it is possible that we are going to make a very clean switch to advanced genetics and functional and safe synthethic biology. However, these are not subjects that I know much about. Nor am I an expert statistician (or a mathematician at that). And hence, I am not sure what kind of a probability we can actually attach to these potential realities, by what set of weights and in which particular time range.
Related to the latter, it seems like all the jobs that exist today are going to go the route of automation. Perhaps, in as short of a duration, as the next 15 years. I am not sure, if the rate of net job creation is actually going to be at a sufficient enough pace. For the majority of humans to be engaged in work that not only powers a quality standard of living. But that the work is actually meaningful.
From the perspective of the interplay between different forms of governance and how they may or may not assist with further enabling the economic base. Through (including but not limited to and in random order): * Helping attract the best and the brightest (immigration reform, path to citizenship e.t.c) * Tax incentives. * Government (tax payer supported) subsidies for helping enable newer verticals (for example: solar, clean-tech, energy systems e.t.c). * Nimble yet effective policy making. * Helping enact policies that lead to enabling newer sources for funding entrepreneurial endeavours (including but not limited to examples like JOBS Act). ++
Before I make the segway into the political and governance side of things. I think and I could be wrong about this, but it seems like ‘growth’ means fundamentally different things to different people across the world.
For a lot of folks, it means affordance or maybe just access. Access to quality : medicine/healthcare, infrastructure, food, shelter ++ Whereby, for others it would include all of the above and then the means and abilities to be able to power dreams.
Next, from the perspective of the political angle and how different economic systems are enabled alongside different kinds of governance structures at play. During the recent decades, the reality on earth has looked something like this. In random order:
| Politics and governance | Economic model and Regulatory framework | Economic sub-model |
|---|---|---|
| Representative Democracy | Capitalism with a regulatory framework in place | Freemarket |
| Representative Democracy | Capitalism with a loose or non-existant regulatory framework | Freemarket |
| Social Democracy | Somewhat centrally managed. Heavily regulated | Some freemarket activity allowed |
| Communist - One party rule | Centrally managed. Loose regulatory framework for the better part, unless in a high demand sector with regular exposure to external facing client. | Some private enterprises allowed |
| Dictatorships | Initial conditions determined by the dictator | For the better part, whatever the dictator decides |
Without the means and ability to be able to model economic systems, it’s hard to anticipate if the bounds, the thresholds of an upper limit are going to be hit. Not in a Malthusian sense.
But contingent on the kinds of economic systems that are designed. There is only going to be so much of nature that is going to be converted into wealth. And so, there is going to be a net rate, a variable which will determine the quality of life of inhabitants.
Now, it does not seem like the mechanisms that have been leveraged in order to power growth in the past. That the same mechanisms are going to be leveraged in the future.
It does seem like we are going to be relying more on specific verticals vs the others. However, this is a thought that I am building up on. Source via Singularityhub. Now, in the previous blogpost I did mention that the challenge is to not develop this tunnel vision of sorts.
I guess one example that I can think of is that of the actual economy of the United States. The source and the data on these actual repositories is something that I have not verified. The issue is that of a transition to a F.I.R.E economy (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate). Source 1 and Source 2 In and of itself, this would not have been a problem. The problem is when the system overwhelmingly starts relying on this very model. * When a system only relies on a finite set of clusters or verticals that are going to drive growth. What this does is, first of all this herd-mentality leads to a lot of smart individuals going into these sectors. Next, because it’s the herd mentality driving this growth, when the bubble does burst then this negatively impacts the lives and the quality of lives of a lot of people. * A better alternative would be to power growth across the board. Or have some weights associated with the two tiered model. Investing in research across the board and across specific verticals.
Overall, my intuitive guess is that you need a middle class and people living in a free environment. People and their children, living in these free environment have the means and ability to be able to think free thoughts. It seems like there may be a higher probability, whereby the continual enablement of new frontier economies is something that could occur (more organically) across societies that are more free.
However, at the same time I can also appreciate that this is a rather, simplistic model. Good ideas can come from anywhere. Perhaps, in addition to the forms of governance and economic platforms that we have on the planet today, we should also experiment with newer designs.
What we do not want is a herd mentality whereby more smart people are heading straight towards what is (all factors considered) an actual bubble. A reality, with little to no grounding in science.
Note: * Highlighting the example of the F.I.R.E economy is not to suggest that there should be a focus on re-enabling the manufacturing sector. In addition to the points raised, one of the intent here is that a) That scientific progress should (maybe) be driving the bulk of the growth vs a reliance on sectors, whereby growth is susceptible to economic bubbles. b) Diversification. 3 sectors should not be driving 30% of the GDP (approximation). * None of what I say here in this blogpost and elsewhere ought to be classified as a declaration. If anything, the intent is to kickstart a discussion around the central topic of what is actually going to be driving growth. What set of strategies and options should be tried?