The Steady State Economy

Could we get an Economic Ideology based on this idea?

A big problem with this is it seems to be firmly entrenched in environmentalism and I don't see that becoming important until the post-modern age.
 
Could we get an Economic Ideology based on this idea?

A big problem with this is it seems to be firmly entrenched in environmentalism and I don't see that becoming important until the post-modern age.

Kinda ASB, given as how it runs contracry to the whole 'supply and demand' thing; population (and demand) grows, so too does supply.
 
But that's apart of this idea. That Capitalist Economies will destroy themselves because resources are limited yet the economy will continuously keep expanding until it starves.
 
Sounds vaguely like mercantilism's zero-sum view of international trade - maybe spin off from that?
Also seems a bit like physiocracy, with its emphasis on the land as the source of wealth. And it sounds a lot like Malthus.

Something a bit like steady-state economics maybe could have emerged in the 18th century, but it would've had a more nationalistic flavor, among other things.
 
Economic theories are fine as long as they remain theories, there to satisfy people's wish dreams. Some wish that the world were one big happy family, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, everyone contented, society stagnating, human beings ceasing to be that which makes them human. Of course there would be no dissent, I mean anyone dissenting would have to be mentally deficient and dealt with accordingly, wouldn't they?

Capitalism is collapsing ... heard that for every one of my 80+ years so I guess it must be true.
 
Capitalism is collapsing ... heard that for every one of my 80+ years so I guess it must be true.

I know, right? It's pretty ridiculous how people can't see the obvious fact that any economic system that's capable of lasting for 80 years is bound to last forever... :p

But back to the OP, isn't a "steady-state economy" kinda the, er, unofficial official economic theory of any feudal landlord worth his or her salt? The manor in theory ought to be capable of supplying all of its own needs, and it oughtn't grow too much as that'll just attract the attention of the bandits & petty warlords who are the reason why there's a feudal landlord in the first place.
 
I know, right? It's pretty ridiculous how people can't see the obvious fact that any economic system that's capable of lasting for 80 years is bound to last forever... :p

But back to the OP, isn't a "steady-state economy" kinda the, er, unofficial official economic theory of any feudal landlord worth his or her salt? The manor in theory ought to be capable of supplying all of its own needs, and it oughtn't grow too much as that'll just attract the attention of the bandits & petty warlords who are the reason why there's a feudal landlord in the first place.

Feudalism historically was very dependent on economic groweth. it tended to collapse when there wasn't any. As a system, it was pretty innovative because you couldn't afford not to be. much of its growth came from arithmetic increase in prodctive resources, though. Feudal lords had to know how to improve their holdings' output.

The idea of steady-state economics is a very common one in both ancient and early modern economic theory, though (probably also medieval, though I haven't read any medieval economic theory). It makes sense, too. For most known history, agicultural ectivity was what most people did and agricultural productivity was fixed. You knew how much grain you could get out of a given unit of land, and while there was scope for growth, it was ultimately limited by this barrier. In the end, you could take all available arable under the plough and develop all other resources to the degree that this output permitted - and that would be that. Everything else was just moving tokens around the board. Shortly after Europe finally reached that stage, productivity boosts took off, but people had no way of knowing that. As late as the nineteenth century, the assumption of a finite and easily calculated lump of resources was economic orthodoxy. Of course they were right in principle, they just were wrong about the extent and potential use of those resources.
 
Economic theories are fine as long as they remain theories, there to satisfy people's wish dreams. Some wish that the world were one big happy family, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, everyone contented, society stagnating, human beings ceasing to be that which makes them human. Of course there would be no dissent, I mean anyone dissenting would have to be mentally deficient and dealt with accordingly, wouldn't they?

So according to you the Tsar didn't dealt with all the mentally retarded Bolsheviks in 1917?

Capitalism is collapsing ... heard that for every one of my 80+ years so I guess it must be true.

I'm not saying it would replace Capitalism (although it will try to) I meant something that opposes Capitalism like Communism, Socialism, and Fascism did in real life.
 
Top