Re: poly: Re: Why interest rates may stay low

On Mar 24, 7:47pm, CurtAdams wrote:
> In a message dated 3/24/98 4:40:24 PM, perry@piermont.com wrote:
 
> Well, actually they might note that going from our solar system
> to the entire galaxy in 1000 years is only about a 2.6% rate of
> return. When the timeframes are millenia you can go from the world
> today to the entire universe with a rather prosaic rate of return.
> So perhaps they're calculating it accurately.

Bugger. And of course we think you can't go to the entire galaxy in 1000
years. More realistic for us might be colonizing the solar system: a 0.7%
growth rate (starting from Earth's economy) will overrun the solar system in
5000 years (you'd be using the mass of Jupiter and 10 times the output of the
Sun); 2.8% growth would drop that to 1250 years, or rather less.

That's aggregate growth of the economy; should that be synonymous with rate of
return? I've been confused at times -- the historical return on stocks is
said to be 10%, but the measured economy generally doesn't grow that fast.
But if aggregate growth equal rate of return, that implies there's no missing
investment in the future, because the future isn't that extraordinary.

Unless you think we can take over the solar system in less time. But if
humans are a limiting factor in economic growth then the growth of the
population will cap the economic growth, and 2.8% a year is a pretty high
increase for educated humans.

-xx- GCU Mindstalker X-)

"*snort* I'm waiting for the day when people realise that mainstream is a
 subset of SF without the speculation.." -- Emmet O'Brien
Received on Wed Mar 25 05:25:55 1998