America: Aging Without Growth, or Awaiting a Singularity?

August 29th, 2012
in Op Ed

by Fabius Maximus

Slow-Road-Sign-160pxSummary: The future of economic growth has become a hot topic. Here’s a brief look at two of the contrasting visions for our future. Read about both visions and decide for yourself!


  1. Introduction
  2. Slow growth ahead — or even no growth
  3. Accelerating growth leading to the singularity
  4. For more information: the two theories about economic growth

Follow up:

(1) Introduction

Forecasts of stagnating growth have been commonplace throughout the centuries of economic progress from industrialization. Resource exhaustion, the end of innovation, overpopulation, pollution, wars, and social collapse. These are timeless concerns, by which far seeing (or pessimistic) people in each generation force us to think ahead — to plan and act now to avoid forseeable disasters.

Posts on the FM website tend to debunk doomsters, but not all warnings are exaggerated or in vain. Here we look at two contradictory views of economic growth (a narrow but vital perspective). No final judgement can be made which is correct. Everyone must choose as they will, and live their lives accordingly.

Posts about the future:

See all posts about this topic at the FM Reference Page Forecasts – possible futures for America and the World.

(2) Slow growth ahead — or even no growth

“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. … Many instances might be cited, but these will suffice to justify the statement that “our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.” — The great physicist Albert Abraham Michelson (1852-1931) in Light Waves and Their Uses (1903)

Is America, and perhaps the entire developed world, doomed to slow economic growth? Are we all fated to follow Japan into a multi-generational stagnation?

(a) The best-known version of this story The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better, an e-book by Tyler Cowen (Prof Economics at George Mason U). About 15,000 words, and costs $4.00. Amazon link: here. Another common version is “Japanification”: deflation, low growth, aging population, and slow decay of the government’s solvency. Japan has shown how easily a nation falls into this, and how difficult the cure.

(b) A more analytic version of a no-growth forecast “Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds“, Robert J. Gordon, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2012 — Abstract:

This paper raises basic questions about the process of economic growth. It questions the assumption, nearly universal since Solow’s seminal contributions of the 1950s, that economic growth is a continuous process that will persist forever. There was virtually no growth before 1750, and thus there is no guarantee that growth will continue indefinitely. Rather, the paper suggests that the rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history. The paper is only about the United States and views the future from 2007 while pretending that the financial crisis did not happen. Its point of departure is growth in per-capita real GDP in the frontier country since 1300, the U.K. until 1906 and the U.S. afterwards. Growth in this frontier gradually accelerated after 1750, reached a peak in the middle of the 20th century, and has been slowing down since. The paper is about “how much further could the frontier growth rate decline?” The analysis links periods of slow and rapid growth to the timing of the three industrial revolutions (IR’s), that is:
  1. steam & railroads — from 1750 to 1830;
  2. electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, entertainment, chemicals, & petroleum — from 1870 to 1900; and
  3. computers, the web, & mobile phones — from 1960 to present.
It provides evidence that IR #2 was more important than the others and was largely responsible for 80 years of relatively rapid productivity growth between 1890 and 1972. Once the spin-off inventions from IR #2 (airplanes, air conditioning, interstate highways) had run their course, productivity growth during 1972-96 was much slower than before. In contrast, IR #3 created only a short-lived growth revival between 1996 and 2004. Many of the original and spin-off inventions of IR #2 could happen only once – urbanization, transportation speed, the freedom of females from the drudgery of carrying tons of water per year, and the role of central heating and air conditioning in achieving a year-round constant temperature. Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9% annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative “exercise in subtraction” suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99% of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 %per year for an extended period of decades.

From the conclusion of the paper:

Volumes have been and will be written on all the issues identified here, and thus it is beyond the scope of this short article to make any serious attempt to provide solutions. Some of the headwinds contain a sense of inevitability. The most daunting is headwind #4, the interplay between globalization and modern technology, which accelerates the process of catching up of the emerging markets and the downward pressure on wages and real incomes in the advanced nations.

(c) Posts about economic stagnation or even collapse

(3) Accelerating growth leading to the singularity

Everything that can be invented has been invented.” — Charles H. Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899 (a famous fake quote, as false as the idea it expresses)

The singularity is a amalgam of ideas, some contradictory, about a future of accelerating technological evolution leading to a new world beyond our understanding. We cannot understand what will come, much as one cannot see through a singularity in the physical universe. It’s origins go back to the mid-19th century (perhaps earlier). For a good introduction to modern thought about it see Three Major Singularity Schools, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, Singularity Institute blog, September 2007. Here’s the opening:

Singularity discussions seem to be splitting up into three major schools of thought: Accelerating Change, the Event Horizon, and the Intelligence Explosion. The thing about these three logically distinct schools of Singularity thought is that, while all three core claims support each other, all three strong claims tend to contradict each other.
Accelerating Change
Core claim: Our intuitions about change are linear; we expect roughly as much change as has occurred in the past over our own lifetimes. But technological change feeds on itself, and therefore accelerates. Change today is faster than it was 500 years ago, which in turn is faster than it was 5000 years ago. Our recent past is not a reliable guide to how much change we should expect in the future. Strong claim: Technological change follows smooth curves, typically exponential. Therefore we can predict with fair precision when new technologies will arrive, and when they will cross key thresholds, like the creation of Artificial Intelligence.
Advocates:Ray Kurzweil, Alvin Toffler(?), John Smart
Event Horizon
Core claim: For the last hundred thousand years, humans have been the smartest intelligences on the planet. All our social and technological progress was produced by human brains. Shortly, technology will advance to the point of improving on human intelligence (brain-computer interfaces, Artificial Intelligence). This will create a future that is weirder by far than most science fiction, a difference-in-kind that goes beyond amazing shiny gadgets. Strong claim: To know what a superhuman intelligence would do, you would have to be at least that smart yourself. To know where Deep Blue would play in a chess game, you must play at Deep Blue’s level. Thus the future after the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence is absolutely unpredictable.
Advocates:Vernor Vinge
Intelligence Explosion
Core claim: Intelligence has always been the source of technology. If technology can significantly improve on human intelligence – create minds smarter than the smartest existing humans – then this closes the loop and creates a positive feedback cycle. What would humans with brain-computer interfaces do with their augmented intelligence? One good bet is that they’d design the next generation of brain-computer interfaces. Intelligence enhancement is a classic tipping point; the smarter you get, the more intelligence you can apply to making yourself even smarter. Strong claim: This positive feedback cycle goes FOOM, like a chain of nuclear fissions gone critical – each intelligence improvement triggering an average of>1.000 further improvements of similar magnitude – though not necessarily on a smooth exponential pathway. Technological progress drops into the characteristic timescale of transistors (or super-transistors) rather than human neurons. The ascent rapidly surges upward and creates superintelligence (minds orders of magnitude more powerful than human) before it hits physical limits.
Advocates: I. J. Good, Eliezer Yudkowsky

Works about the singularity:

Posts about the singularity:

(4) For more information: the two theories about economic growth This is a complex subject. These two Wikipedia entries provide a good introduction to the theories underlying these two visions of the future.

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.

1 comment

  1. Walter Antoniotti Email says :

    Has the Purely Competitive Adjustment
    Caused a New Normal for wages?
    Beginning with the economic expansion caused by WWII, demand for U.S. manufactured goods increased dramatically. It took Germany, England and Japan many years to repair war damaged manufacturers and bring an end to U.S. manufacturers monopoly power. As a
    result, demand increase from D to D.' Profits maximization resulted. Thanks in part to Unions, these manufactures shared their excess profits with unionized workers and wages increases spilled over to many nonunion workers.

    Serious competition from foreign manufacturers, beginning with automobiles and steel, increased supply from S to S'. Rust belt
    industries lost all their excess profits and some incurred a loss as supply increased too much to S" (not shown). Wage give backs began and many other workers found themselves with stagnating wages. Companies used technology and outsourcing to be more competitive and this continues to put pressure on wages.

    This also happened in the finance industry with competition coming from foreign banking and cheap Internet trading. Their attempt to
    increase D for their services with exotic products like derivatives has not worked out well as of 07/01/10.

    As a result, the high ever increasing standard of living enjoyed in the U.S. will grow very slowly as we share the wealth with people from around the world. We may even have to give some back because of our energy dependence and recent decadence though increased production of energy and shale lessen this dependency. But we will still enjoy the highest standard of living in the industrialized world and technology will continue to make our lives better, especially now that the Asians will be contributing because of their investments in R&D. And, always remember the best things in life will continue to be free and having enough money is a function of demand, not supply. From



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved