USA Economy Surges On Q1 Of 2019

[Economy 53,081]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/26/economy/us-gdp-report-q1/index.html

 

US GDP grew 3.2% in first quarter of 2019 and would have grown 0.3% more (3.5%) without Government Shutdown

 

Q1 is usually the weakest quarter as consumers pullback after Chrismas shopping and some sectors like construction slow down during cold winter weather so a solid 3.2% in first quarter is very rare

 

However most of the growth came from increase State Spending on infrastructure and inventory gains as businesses stock piled goods not due to business investment or consumer spending which suggests this surge will not necessarily continue into Q2 unless businesses and consumers open their wallets

[Free My Mind 2,210]

growth growth and more growth

let's just pretend that perpetual growth isn't causing earth systems breakdown shall we

[Economy 53,081]

21 minutes ago, Free My Mind said:

growth growth and more growth

let's just pretend that perpetual growth isn't causing earth systems breakdown shall we

Well growth doesn't HAVE to ruin environment tho. Depends how and what we consume

 

For example, I'd like to see services continue to grow while consumption of physical goods declines as it's less impactful on earth's resources

 

Also, any resources we do use could be better recycled and our energy more renewable

 

I believe economic growth doesn't have to necessarily cause more damage if we are smart about it

 

For emissions and energy intensity per unit of GDP has been falling for some time

 

For example for every 3% in GDP growth now emissions only grow about 1% as our energy consumption keeps falling

 

Eventually emissions should fall even as the economy grows as they are almost flat now

 

The the developed world emissions are already falling even as the economies are still growing a bit

 

[Adakam 2]

11 minutes ago, Economy said:

 

 

Eventually emissions should fall even as the economy grows as they are almost flat now

 

I dont think the world has time for "eventually"

[Economy 53,081]

Just now, Adakam said:

I dont think the world has time for "eventually"

I agree with u. We do need to do more

 

But I don't think the economy doing badly will do much tho... When we have recessions consumption actually only falls marginally unless it's a severe depression like the 1930s

 

If anything the economy not growing can be worse as the public becomes less willing to let the government spend money on green investments or to pay costs like a carbon tax etc

 

I think to pay for green transitions we actually want a good economy not a bad one

[Free My Mind 2,210]

23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Well growth doesn't HAVE to ruin environment tho. Depends how and what we consume

 

For example, I'd like to see services continue to grow while consumption of physical goods declines as it's less impactful on earth's resources

 

Also, any resources we do use could be better recycled and our energy more renewable

 

I believe economic growth doesn't have to necessarily cause more damage if we are smart about it

 

For emissions and energy intensity per unit of GDP has been falling for some time

 

For example for every 3% in GDP growth now emissions only grow about 1% as our energy consumption keeps falling

 

Eventually emissions should fall even as the economy grows as they are almost flat now

 

The the developed world emissions are already falling even as the economies are still growing a bit

 

All the evidence shows that our use of materials is strongly coupled with GDP. The whole idea of capitalism thrives from the fact that materials are used and a profit is made from that, that is how growth is achieved. You can’t have growth without using more materials.

 

the idea of ‘green growth’ is frankly pie in the sky

[Economy 53,081]

Just now, Free My Mind said:

All the evidence shows that our use of materials is strongly coupled with GDP. The whole idea of capitalism thrives from the fact that materials are used and a profit is made from that, that is how growth is achieved. You can’t have growth without using more materials.

Yes but it doesn't mean the energy used has to be the same amount to produce that good or that it has to keep being from a non-renewable source

 

Also ur forgetting a lot of the economy isn't physical goods anymore. A lot of the economy that involves services or even digital sales (like buying a song for example) and more and more a part of the economy

 

Intangible goods and services are growing faster as a share of the economy than ever before

 

That's why GDP vs emissions and resources used don't necessarily have to move in perfect random

 

And even if they did. How we consume the energy, what we recycle, which resources we use (renewable or non-renewable) etc matters too. It's not just the total resources consumed

 

Total GDP is not a good way to see how much impact an economy has on the earth

 

For example the US now pollutes less than China even tho US economy is still larger... Americans have a large service based economy which is less ecologically damaging while China is still mostly industrial based

 

[Free My Mind 2,210]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yes but it doesn't mean the energy used has to be the same amount to produce that good or that it has to keep being from a non-renewable source

 

Also ur forgetting a lot of the economy isn't physical goods anymore. A lot of the economy that involves services or even digital sales (like buying a song for example) and more and more a part of the economy

 

Intangible goods and services are growing faster as a share of the economy than ever before

 

That's why GDP vs emissions and resources used don't necessarily have to move in perfect random

 

And even if they did. How we consume the energy, what we recycle, which resources we use (renewable or non-renewable) etc matters too. It's not just the total resources consumed

 

Total GDP is not a good way to see how much impact an economy has on the earth

 

For example the US now pollutes less than China even tho US economy is still larger... Americans have a large service based economy which is less ecologically damaging while China is still mostly industrial based

 

we were told that as the economy shifted from goods to services that there would be an 'absolute decoupling' of GDP to use of natural resources. This hasn't happened. Moreover, empirical evidence shows that it's actually impossible for absolute decoupling to happen on a global scale. It doesn't matter if the amount of material used goes decreases - as long as its linked to GDP and we are seeking perpetual growth, then we are doomed.

[Economy 53,081]

7 minutes ago, Free My Mind said:

we were told that as the economy shifted from goods to services that there would be an 'absolute decoupling' of GDP to use of natural resources. This hasn't happened. Moreover, empirical evidence shows that it's actually impossible for absolute decoupling to happen on a global scale. It doesn't matter if the amount of material used goes decreases - as long as its linked to GDP and we are seeking perpetual growth, then we are doomed.

It has in some Nations. It's just that globally developing nations consumption is still rising so fast that our efficiency in resources and energy to produce the same economic activity cannot offset the massive growth in some parts of the world

 

I do think this transition is happening too slow tho for us to save the planet. We need to speed it up

[Free My Mind 2,210]

7 hours ago, Economy said:

It has in some Nations. It's just that globally developing nations consumption is still rising so fast that our efficiency in resources and energy to produce the same economic activity cannot offset the massive growth in some parts of the world

 

I do think this transition is happening too slow tho for us to save the planet. We need to speed it up

Case 1:
In 2012, a german team of scientists ran a study where they ran a model that predicted that, even if every country used best practice in efficient resource use - which is incredibly ambitious, that resource consumption would still be double the recommended level for sustainable resource use. 

Case 2:
In 2016 another team of scientists assumed that every country goes ABOVE AND BEYOND the best practices, involving multiplying the price of carbon by almost 5 through a tax and technological innovations that would double efficiency of resource use. The results of this were pretty much the same as the German team. 

Case 3:
A study by the UN Environment Program (who were once champions of the green growth theory), tested a case where EVEN MORE measures were made - even more expensive carbon, a resource extraction tax, rapid technological innovation and strong government support. Their findings were even worse than the previous two. This is because of a 'rebound effect' where improvements in resource efficiency drive down prices and cause demand to rise.

The results of all of these studies tell us that no matter what measures you put in place to attempt to decouple growth from resource consumption - it doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much you slow it down, it won't reverse the crisis we are in.

You're not going to prevent earth systems breakdown by pissing about at the margins, using paper straws and recycling. We need serious economic and systemic change. The first thing we need to do is take perpetual growth off the agenda.

[Economy 53,081]

7 hours ago, Free My Mind said:

Case 1:
In 2012, a german team of scientists ran a study where they ran a model that predicted that, even if every country used best practice in efficient resource use - which is incredibly ambitious, that resource consumption would still be double the recommended level for sustainable resource use. 

Case 2:
In 2016 another team of scientists assumed that every country goes ABOVE AND BEYOND the best practices, involving multiplying the price of carbon by almost 5 through a tax and technological innovations that would double efficiency of resource use. The results of this were pretty much the same as the German team. 

Case 3:
A study by the UN Environment Program (who were once champions of the green growth theory), tested a case where EVEN MORE measures were made - even more expensive carbon, a resource extraction tax, rapid technological innovation and strong government support. Their findings were even worse than the previous two. This is because of a 'rebound effect' where improvements in resource efficiency drive down prices and cause demand to rise.

The results of all of these studies tell us that no matter what measures you put in place to attempt to decouple growth from resource consumption - it doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much you slow it down, it won't reverse the crisis we are in.

You're not going to prevent earth systems breakdown by pissing about at the margins, using paper straws and recycling. We need serious economic and systemic change. The first thing we need to do is take perpetual growth off the agenda.

How do u suggest we go about doing that?

[Free My Mind 2,210]

28 minutes ago, Economy said:

How do u suggest we go about doing that?

well obviously stopping chasing perpetual growth is a start. A complete rethinking of the economy where we stop obsessing over fulfilling our wants to ensuring everyone can satisfy our needs while being within our environmental means. You should look up doughnut economics, it's really interesting. There's a couple of TED talks about it on youtube.

[Economy 53,081]

11 minutes ago, Free My Mind said:

well obviously stopping chasing perpetual growth is a start. A complete rethinking of the economy where we stop obsessing over fulfilling our wants to ensuring everyone can satisfy our needs while being within our environmental means. You should look up doughnut economics, it's really interesting. There's a couple of TED talks about it on youtube.

But in terms of wants that's also gonna be up to ppl I don't know how the government is gonna force that

 

Also in terms of no more growth... Ur gonna have to make it illegal for businesses to grow. How do u control that? Does each business have a quota of sales they can't exceed???

 

Sounds really complicated

[rumours 45,521]

17 hours ago, Free My Mind said:

You can’t have growth without using more materials.

That isn’t necessarily true. I’d suggest reading up on residuals and TFP analyzed through the lens of the Solow Swan Growth Model. Essentially, not all growth necessarily comes directly from inputs (i.e. Labor, Capital, etc.). Total Factor Productivity can help explain across-country differences in Y.

It also has some pretty interesting predictions regarding the convergence of growth rates and balanced growth.

This brief outline does an okay job at explaining the model: 

https://web.stanford.edu/~pkurlat/teaching/2_Growth.pdf

Hope this helps 

[gabeoz 7,915]

19 hours ago, Economy said:

However most of the growth came from increase State Spending on infrastructure and inventory gains as businesses stock piled goods not due to business investment or consumer spending which suggests this surge will not necessarily continue into Q2 unless businesses and consumers open their wallets

This is where a lot of it comes from. Across NC this past quarter they've ramped infrastructure a LOT, they're putting in a lot of money to upgrade roads and highways across the state. They've even begun building 5 roudabouts in my town alone.