It looks like we’re closer than I feared—I’d agree with your first two answers, and “no idea” is hard to disagree with on the third. I’d have to also answer “no idea” to “is that likely?”, I’m afraid. If really pressed for an answer I’d say it’s probably not likely to happen (sub 50%), but it’s likely enough (greater than 5%?) to be worth worrying about, considering the magnitude of the consequences.
Answering your second question then only depends on a couple issues:
First: is it possible to “save” and “spend” wealth? I.e., can we turn long-term capital into short-term consumables and vice-versa? I’d say the answer is “yes”, there are lots of ways we can divert resources between luxury/maintenance/upkeep and immediate survival. This is usually a good thing, since it means that we can accumulate savings against disaster in a way that isn’t just pushing accountants’ numbers around or shifting wealth between demographics… but it also opens up the possibility of a massive crash, in which it’s possible to “eat our seed corn” and continue to grow and survive in an unsustainable way which can have sudden discontinuities when the savings start to run out.
Second: what would actually happen when we allowed the market solution to occur? (is that better language? you’re right that “tried to implement” had some dubious connotations)
“No idea” is a good honest start, but it’s not hard to make a few educated guesses. If poor kids are too numerous for their parents and voluntary charity to pay for, but there are still wealthy people around too, what happens? We might ask for “the government not to interfere”, but even if you can make a case for that being the correct default normative expectation, is that truly your positive expectation? Is this a world where governments typically don’t interfere with markets, and they won’t let some hungry kids stop them from sticking to those non-interference principles?
can we turn long-term capital into short-term consumables and vice-versa? I’d say the answer is “yes”
I am considerably more doubtful about that. A resource shortage is about lack of particular molecules or atoms (or, maybe, cheap enough energy). Long-term capital mostly exists as financial instruments, land, buildings, and such. As the old saying goes, you can’t eat money.
If poor kids are too numerous for their parents and voluntary charity to pay for, but there are still wealthy people around too, what happens?
The usual. That’s the normal state of being for most of humanity’s history. It’s happening right now—look at Africa. All historical lessons (about the comparative utility of markets vs direct government intervention) are fully applicable.
It looks like we’re closer than I feared—I’d agree with your first two answers, and “no idea” is hard to disagree with on the third. I’d have to also answer “no idea” to “is that likely?”, I’m afraid. If really pressed for an answer I’d say it’s probably not likely to happen (sub 50%), but it’s likely enough (greater than 5%?) to be worth worrying about, considering the magnitude of the consequences.
Answering your second question then only depends on a couple issues:
First: is it possible to “save” and “spend” wealth? I.e., can we turn long-term capital into short-term consumables and vice-versa? I’d say the answer is “yes”, there are lots of ways we can divert resources between luxury/maintenance/upkeep and immediate survival. This is usually a good thing, since it means that we can accumulate savings against disaster in a way that isn’t just pushing accountants’ numbers around or shifting wealth between demographics… but it also opens up the possibility of a massive crash, in which it’s possible to “eat our seed corn” and continue to grow and survive in an unsustainable way which can have sudden discontinuities when the savings start to run out.
Second: what would actually happen when we allowed the market solution to occur? (is that better language? you’re right that “tried to implement” had some dubious connotations)
“No idea” is a good honest start, but it’s not hard to make a few educated guesses. If poor kids are too numerous for their parents and voluntary charity to pay for, but there are still wealthy people around too, what happens? We might ask for “the government not to interfere”, but even if you can make a case for that being the correct default normative expectation, is that truly your positive expectation? Is this a world where governments typically don’t interfere with markets, and they won’t let some hungry kids stop them from sticking to those non-interference principles?
I am considerably more doubtful about that. A resource shortage is about lack of particular molecules or atoms (or, maybe, cheap enough energy). Long-term capital mostly exists as financial instruments, land, buildings, and such. As the old saying goes, you can’t eat money.
The usual. That’s the normal state of being for most of humanity’s history. It’s happening right now—look at Africa. All historical lessons (about the comparative utility of markets vs direct government intervention) are fully applicable.