My position is that global GDP is a compounding function on interest. So you if you take the sum total of the world's GDP you can take out (x - m). You can simplify the equation further to goods produced today and investment, which is similar to your argument.
So you have a total stock of raw resources, the current production function based on technological transformation, and computed interest in the future (which is a compound function). The resource stock is finite no matter its size (like all resources on earth), and the future expected return to transform those resources is expected to go up exponentially.
Competition doesn't matter under these circumstances. So long as investment has a compound function you run out of resources quite quickly or reach a point where whoever owns the most raw resources is the person that wins under the condition of a complicated game of musical chairs.
At 3.5 percent GDP growth rate at a compounded return you have to double the real return of goods in twenty years. Or you have inflation. In a generation the system collapses.
You have to massively redistribute wealth and flatten the gini coefficient almost immediately while assuming that GDP can no longer increase. Or you don't believe in math. There isn't a middle ground. Giving people bonds based on what they do that are nontradeable would be a start, although how you forbid resale is legally difficult. Forming investment vehicles that do what Benjamin Franklin did with the college in philedelphia might help. But the math doesn't work if you have a finite set of resources and a compound function of return. Technological transformation of raw resources into goods isn't a guaranteed exponential function.
Or we'll see more of what's come before. We can afford fancy computers but not homes because cell phones are cheap to produce and land is expensive to own.
So you have a total stock of raw resources, the current production function based on technological transformation, and computed interest in the future (which is a compound function). The resource stock is finite no matter its size (like all resources on earth), and the future expected return to transform those resources is expected to go up exponentially.
Competition doesn't matter under these circumstances. So long as investment has a compound function you run out of resources quite quickly or reach a point where whoever owns the most raw resources is the person that wins under the condition of a complicated game of musical chairs.
At 3.5 percent GDP growth rate at a compounded return you have to double the real return of goods in twenty years. Or you have inflation. In a generation the system collapses.
You have to massively redistribute wealth and flatten the gini coefficient almost immediately while assuming that GDP can no longer increase. Or you don't believe in math. There isn't a middle ground. Giving people bonds based on what they do that are nontradeable would be a start, although how you forbid resale is legally difficult. Forming investment vehicles that do what Benjamin Franklin did with the college in philedelphia might help. But the math doesn't work if you have a finite set of resources and a compound function of return. Technological transformation of raw resources into goods isn't a guaranteed exponential function.
Or we'll see more of what's come before. We can afford fancy computers but not homes because cell phones are cheap to produce and land is expensive to own.
Compound interest is a massive problem.