Cyronicsers, by producing exactly what they consume (less the cryonics expenses), contribute nothing to capital while suspended.
Still going on about that?
Dead people, by consuming non of what they produced prior to their death, contribute exactly the same, except that it costs less to remain dead than to remain suspended.
Wrong.
Where is the maximum? What number of people put into free suspension would maximize long-term growth until they were removed. All of them? Then who does the growth? N, or N% of them? Why non N-1, or N+1; what changes from the current situation to the one in which N or N% people are in suspension?
Long-term growth is maximized by spending as little as possible; this doesn’t change at any %, your attempt at the sorites notwithstanding. The usual explanation for why spending is not minimized relates to utility functions, discounting, and diminishing returns (which is not no returns, I say in advance to forestall one of your misunderstandings).
The sorites game ends as soon as there are not enough willing buyers to buy all of the bonds that are being used as liquid assets. Those bonds would have been sold anyway- to the person who now wishes to buy them, if nobody else.
And on each margin, fewer bonds will be offered and fewer ventures launched, the point your ‘significantly’ glosses over entirely.
Consider the world in which some event magically safely placed every human being into suspension for a period of three years; 2009-2012; then removed them from suspension today. Maintenance was performed magically to the same degree it is in the real world, and whatever other incidental magic is performed as needed.
Does this world have a larger economy than it did in 2009? Is it larger than the real world equivalent?
The sorites game ends as soon as there are not enough willing buyers to buy all of the bonds that are being used as liquid assets. Those bonds would have been sold anyway- to the person who now wishes to buy them, if nobody else.
And on each margin, fewer bonds will be offered and fewer ventures launched, the point your ‘significantly’ glosses over entirely.
I guess that’s part of ‘demand creates its own supply’ then; in both cases the number of people who want to buy bonds exceeds the number of bonds being offered; but if more of the buyers want to use bonds as liquid assets more bonds will be offered? The market doesn’t clear in either case- there are still buyers who want to buy bonds, but there are no more bonds offered. If there were more bonds being offered, then the people who would buy them on the secondary market would buy them on the primary market; there cannot be buyers with unmet demand on the secondary market and sellers with unsold bonds on the primary market.
Does this world have a larger economy than it did in 2009? Is it larger than the real world equivalent?
Your hypothetical is irrelevant and would be irrelevant even if everyone in the world signed up for cryonics.
I guess that’s part of ‘demand creates its own supply’ then
No, it’s just an observation that not every possible clearing market of bonds will maximize growth… See previous points about utility and discounting etc.
Still going on about that?
Wrong.
Long-term growth is maximized by spending as little as possible; this doesn’t change at any %, your attempt at the sorites notwithstanding. The usual explanation for why spending is not minimized relates to utility functions, discounting, and diminishing returns (which is not no returns, I say in advance to forestall one of your misunderstandings).
And on each margin, fewer bonds will be offered and fewer ventures launched, the point your ‘significantly’ glosses over entirely.
Consider the world in which some event magically safely placed every human being into suspension for a period of three years; 2009-2012; then removed them from suspension today. Maintenance was performed magically to the same degree it is in the real world, and whatever other incidental magic is performed as needed.
Does this world have a larger economy than it did in 2009? Is it larger than the real world equivalent?
I guess that’s part of ‘demand creates its own supply’ then; in both cases the number of people who want to buy bonds exceeds the number of bonds being offered; but if more of the buyers want to use bonds as liquid assets more bonds will be offered? The market doesn’t clear in either case- there are still buyers who want to buy bonds, but there are no more bonds offered. If there were more bonds being offered, then the people who would buy them on the secondary market would buy them on the primary market; there cannot be buyers with unmet demand on the secondary market and sellers with unsold bonds on the primary market.
Your hypothetical is irrelevant and would be irrelevant even if everyone in the world signed up for cryonics.
No, it’s just an observation that not every possible clearing market of bonds will maximize growth… See previous points about utility and discounting etc.