Can't say I disagree with you Steve,sick of being blind sided or...

Can't say I disagree with you Steve,sick of being blind sided or someone gaslighting you?,again I don't disagree.

Iam posting this part article from robin Hanson its about singularity in economics.

Why I am doing this is jump ahead the current clutter that's ticking people off and the simple fact that the goal posts are always moving.SO what was in at the start of work is very different to retirement or being sacked and that is what retirement is really the sack.

You are as I am a burden and an economic bludger on a pure economic growth potential.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


by Robin Hanson

Economic growth is determined by the supply and demand of investment capital; technology determines the demand for capital, while human nature determines the supply. The supply curve has two distinct parts, giving the world economy two distinct modes. In the familiar slow growth mode, rates of return are limited by human discount rates. In the fast growth mode, investment is limited by the world's wealth. Historical trends suggest that we may transition to the fast mode in roughly another century and a half.

Can some new technology switch us to the fast mode more quickly than this? Perhaps, but such a technology must greatly raise the rate of return for the world's expected worst investment project. It must thus be very broadly applicable, improving almost all forms of capital and investment. Furthermore, investment externalities must remain within certain limits.

and


What fast growth requires
Assuming that preference parameters a,p don't change much, what does this model say about the possibility of an economic "singularity," that is, very large growth rates g in per-capita consumption? Such growth rates, if they persisted long, would imply vast changes in per-capita consumption in a single human generation.
The demand equation says that per-capita consumption growth g can't get very large unless the interest rate r does, and the rental equation says that the interest rate r can't get very large unless the total return A does. The accounting equation also says that total consumption growth n+g can't get very large unless total return A does.

Using our equations to eliminate r and g, we get a market equation, with capital demand on the left and capital supply on the right,
p - a * n
A(s) = ----------- .
i - a * s
For p < a n and a s < i, this gives the functional form shown in the figure in the body of the paper. Thus the relevant savings fraction is actually s/i, savings relative to internality, rather than savings relative to total income.
The limits to fast growth appear more directly in
p - n
g = s * ----------- .
i - a * s
Thus the only way to allow very fast growth g>> p is for s = ~i/a without n = ~p. Thus since s < 1, we require i < a.
Thus an economic singularity, g>> p, requires: i < a, s = ~i/a, and A(i/a) >> p .
That is, for unit (i.e., log) risk-aversion, an economic singularity requires that 1. Investment projects on net benefit, rather than hurt, non-investors.
2. Savings must be carefully balanced near the internality parameter.
3. The return expected for the worst invested-in project becomes very large.
The bottom line is that this model does allow for an economic singularity under certain circumstances. The historical increase in the savings fraction has been roughly constant with time for the last two centuries, suggesting a near 100% savings fraction near the year 2150. Our ignorance about the internality parameter is cause for concernl. Thus it is possible, though not obvious, that a continuation of historical trends will result in an economic singularity of g>> p in roughly a century and a half.