Supercroissance (Supergrowth) - The secular stagnation will not take place - Façal Hafied

  • This French author propose an analysis on current potentiality of Super-growth, challengin the theory of secular stagnation.


    Probably the engleash reader will be able to catch what is said with youtube translator (subtittle generation and translation) and google translator...


    Very interesting if you put LENR radical disruption in perspective, and current problems of underfunding.




    http://www.fypeditions.com/sup…ion-seculaire-naura-lieu/


    https://translate.google.fr/tr…n-seculaire-naura-lieu%2F


  • There are interesting discussion on what is blocking technology disruption, because of ageaing population with much savings but managed like accountant, not like entrepreneurs. Even VC don't do their work today.

    From Shumpeter's Entrepreneur Capitalism, to Managed Capitalism for the grannies.


    He also remind us that secular stagnation theory emerged in the 30s and was followed by 50s supergrowth.


    I could remind similar recurrence about Malthusian meme.

  • The idea that after a relatively long (by modern standards) period of stagnation we will get a spurt in growth is a very reasonable one. If the Roulette ball falls on red 10X in a row, it is worth betting on black next time - even if there is no greater mathematical probability of that being a winning bet (it is also known as a 'sucker's bet).


    However, for me the key question is 'growth at what cost - and growth for which part of society'?'. AI carries the promise of mass unemployment with it- perhaps 1/3 of the workforce will be displaced by smart systems. So growth may not be good for them.. Bitcoin and block-chain can create a non-fiat un-trackable and essentially un-taxable system of moving wealth around the world. To whose benefit? Certainly this wealth will not feed the poor or heal the sick- unless they are the very wealthy sick.


    There is an old chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times' - and another European one - 'be careful what you wish for, you might just get it'. Both may apply here.

  • the supergrowth of 1950s have displaced many French peasant (more than 90% of population at that time, now few %) to factories.

    AI can also helps weak people to participate, like IT helped many people run business.


    Philippe Silbezahn sees the AI allowing apperance of hybrid workers, the Centaurs


    https://philippesilberzahn.com…-centaure-etes-vous-pret/


    https://translate.google.fr/tr…es-vous-pret%2F&sandbox=1


    the problem is that some peripheral populations are excluded from the move, not because of competence, but because of networking and geography

    The French, Coming Apart

    And this exclusion may even be implemented in the name of protecting them from evil modernity.

  • Quote

    If the Roulette ball falls on red 10X in a row, it is worth betting on black next time - even if there is no greater mathematical probability of that being a winning bet (it is also known as a 'sucker's bet).

    No it's not. It make absolutely no difference what came before, assuming the roulette wheel has been (heh!) calibrated to be neutral. Each spin of a roulette wheel is an independent trial. The wheel does not have memory. What has that to do with a sucker bet?


    Quote

    A sucker bet is a gambling wager in which the expected return is significantly lower than the wager(s).

    (internet)

  • No it's not. It make absolutely no difference what came before, assuming the roulette wheel has been (heh!) calibrated to be neutral. Each spin of a roulette wheel is an independent trial. The wheel does not have memory. What has that to do with a sucker bet?


    (internet)

    Ah..... probabilities! Just like Einstein's theory, probabilities are all relative!


    Probability of flipping a coin and getting a "heads" (or a tails) for one particular flip? 50/50


    Probability of flipping that same coin three times and getting two heads and one tail? 3 / 8


    Yet on the last flip, you have both a 50/50 chance of getting a heads or a tail, but relative to the "EVENT" of 3 flips, the odds is only 3/8.


    Increase that to 10 times (as such in the above Roulette), you find yourself in the situation where BOTH Mary and Alan are correct! Observing only the last spin, Mary is correct.... if observing the entire "event", Alan is correct. Such as the probability of flipping a coin 10 times and getting all heads is not 50/50. Yet on that last flip, even if the previous 9 were all head, from one point of observation, the last flip would be 50/50.


    Now the real question is..... If Rossi puts on 10 DPS ... errr... Demo's..... what is the probability that they will be measured properly, open to scrutiny and above board? :/   :?: :!: ^^



    For inquiring minds who like the details :

    The probability of an event is a measure of the likelihood that the event will occur. By convention, statisticians have agreed on the following rules.

    • The probability of any event can range from 0 to 1.
    • The probability of event A is the sum of the probabilities of all the sample points in event A.
    • The probability of event A is denoted by P(A).

    Suppose a coin is flipped 3 times. What is the probability of getting two tails and one head?

    Solution: For this experiment, the sample space consists of 8 sample points.

    S = {TTT, TTH, THT, THH, HTT, HTH, HHT, HHH}

    Each sample point is equally likely to occur, so the probability of getting any particular sample point is 1/8. The event "getting two tails and one head" consists of the following subset of the sample space.

    A = {TTH, THT, HTT}

    The probability of Event A is the sum of the probabilities of the sample points in A. Therefore,


    P(A) = 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 = 3/8


    http://stattrek.com/probability/probability-problems.aspx

  • supergrowth, is more like earthquake.


    Some energy accumulates, and is blocked, until a minor events makes a local obstracle breaks, causing for some time an avalanche of breaks of other obstacles and it may cause a tiny, important, or huge quake (critical failure, length of break down in a critical situation have no average).


    Ther is another model for supergrowth events, it is the century waves and the maslow window

    http://21stcenturywaves.com/the-maslow-window-intro/


    I follow other subjects, more negatives, the luddites and malthusian movements which is dominant today, and it seems cyclical too, like earthquake or astable oscillators.

    Like Façal Hafied, I feel there is an accumulation of obstacle to evolution, and accumulation of physical and knowledge resources.

  • p at an instance t is WI.pt+1= Wi,p,yxF Pot-luck, You can only put so much sand on the pile before the slide. Then we all need to stop and fix it is one way to restart. Food.

    BB will need to let go, or be in the path of the sand, twisters,earthquakes,floods, in a whole new type of "Pot luck"

  • Alan Smith

    I was responding to this of yours:


    Quote

    If the Roulette ball falls on red 10X in a row, it is worth betting on black next time

    And that's wrong. In this context, I assume worth means the probability of winning, Otherwise, what can "worth" even mean? And that is the same, for any number of independent trials, REGARDLESS of what color came before. Definition of independent!


    I have no idea what you meant after that but it won't change the fact that it is NOT worth betting on black next time. Not any more than betting on red. If you're saying something else, please explain. You're getting as cryptic as the Abdominable Abd.


    Bob Alan was not discussing the probability of getting 10 spins resulting in the same color in a row. He implied that prior results affected the next trial. They don't. I'm pretty sure he knows that so the point, if any, he was trying to make, eludes me. And knowing Alan from prior reading, he is not likely to make it clearer.

  • In same vein, NextBigFuture propose an optimistic vision based on emerging thechnologies:

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…decade-economic-boom.html

    Quote

    There was a long period of stronger productivity growth from 1917 to 1973 driven by low-cost oil and increasing usage of cars and more efficient factories.


    We are entering a new period of stronger productivity growth from energy cheaper than oil, self-driving cars making transportation cheaper than car ownership, AI-Big Data and robotics boosting the efficiency of business and medicines that will cure diseases and restore vitality.

    ...

  • Alain Coëtmeur! Happy birthday! Be always healthy and devoted to the belief in work, science. You everything help to open the talents and at you it turns out! Be always on the ball and your work will help us to find new energy!

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr: