It would be more accurate to say that: surplus*(growth) + surplus*(prosperity) = surplus
where  growth+prosperity = 1 , 0<growth, prosperity<1 .
So we need to choose between growth and prosperity, but not in a binary sort of way ...
You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.









It would be more accurate to say that: surplus*(growth) + surplus*(prosperity) = surplus
where  growth+prosperity = 1 , 0<growth, prosperity<1 .
So we need to choose between growth and prosperity, but not in a binary sort of way ...
Actually your first equation reduces to one of your conditional equations and the second conditional equation becomes pretty much self evident... therefore your conditions are superfluous and unnecessary.
Since the above is true, surplus factors itself out of the system and it DOES become a kind of binary equation.
surplus*growth + surplus*prosperity = surplus
surplus(growth+prosperity) = surplus
growth+prosperity=surplus/surplus
growth+prosperity=1
growth=1prosperity, prosperity=1growth
The 'binary' of it is that it solves into what is basically inverse binary functions and no numbers greater than 1 work in the system of equations thus arrived at.
If your equation IS correct, then if we put in, for example, .5 for prosperity you get .5 for growth, which is the current fiction we are under that claims perpetual growth with prosperity is possible.
Therefore, I disagree with you based on observed phenomena. Mathematics be damned, if it goes completely counter to what we are actually seeing it's time we come up with a new mathematical model.
Join the discussion