Compounding at 1% error in figures.

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
RayTomes's picture
RayTomes
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 20 2009
Posts: 67
Compounding at 1% error in figures.

In part 3 on exponential growth, there is a chart showing the number of years to reach each successive billion from a starting point of a million people at 1% per annum growth rate. The figure given for 1 to 2 billion is 100 years, but the correct figure is 70 years (or slightly under). This does not alter the general gist of things, but it would be good to correct this.

 

DavidC's picture
DavidC
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 243
Re: Compounding at 1% error in figures.

Ray,

You're quite correct, I've just checked it on a spreadsheet. The time taken for the poulation to grow from 1 million (1,000,000) to 2 billion (2,000,000,000) is between 764 and 765 years at 1% per annum growth. The time taken to grow from 1,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 is about 70 years.

I can list the numbers if anyone's interested!

DavidC

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Compounding at 1% error in figures.

Hi Ray,

I've watched over your posts here for a number of days and studied your responses to the Crash Course. I have a very simple question for you. Even with underlying detail in the small print that you're finding, over all, is the Crash Course a useful tool in describing these 'interesting times' to the masses?

Best,

Paul

RayTomes's picture
RayTomes
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 20 2009
Posts: 67
Re: Compounding at 1% error in figures.
Vanityfox451 wrote:

Hi Ray,

I've watched over your posts here for a number of days and studied your responses to the Crash Course. I have a very simple question for you. Even with underlying detail in the small print that you're finding, over all, is the Crash Course a useful tool in describing these 'interesting times' to the masses?

Best,

Paul

Hi Paul, I said in my first post, which was after watching part 5 (out of order, as I wanted to check the substance) that:

I just came across this site and chose Chapter 5: Growth vs. Prosperity to listen to first because my views on this are very different to the conventional "wisdom". So it was delightful to hear it said that growth is not prosperity. I am of the opinion that there is a "Green Economics" that is vastly better for everyone than the policies pursued by most nations. Limiting growth is the first step towards that.

I would say that it is a useful tool. I have been trying to tell people for many years that growth is not good for anyone including business. Even in the NZ Green Party I have difficulty getting people to understand that. So Chapter 5 is a very important one to me.

I would say that the earlier individual parts are all very good apart from a few small errors that don't really alter the gist of it. It is of course good to correct those errors because they may be used by critics. My raising them is with that in mind.

The last couple of videos are more difficult, as I am sure CM has acknowledged, with opinions and such. I wouldn't in the slightest deny the importance of action. There is an observation by studies of people's estimates of future change that shows that in the short term less happens than people think and in the long term more happens. I think that will be true here also.

I am a fan of Edward R Dewey who was a great interdisciplinary cycles researcher (formerly an economist who was asked by the president to find out why the 1929 crash occurred). In his analysis of the maturing of nations he found that they do pass a peak and go downhill. The date he forecast for peak economic welfare of the US was (these are from memory and might be a little out) about 1965 and the actual was 1967 according to someone who looked at it after the event. People may think that the US has progressed since then, but here we find evidence of the fiddling of GDP and CPI figures to make it look like the country is getting richer when it is actually getting poorer year by year. An event like the New Orleans flooding shows how poor are the conditions in which many Americans live, and how destitute the countries response was as a whole (individual citizens surely were more generous in many ways).

shamgar348's picture
shamgar348
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 8 2009
Posts: 1
Re: Compounding at 1% error in figures.

Fascinating work! However does the population exponential growth take into account the number of people dying? After all, for every person born some die every day...

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Compounding at 1% error in figures.
shamgar348 wrote:

Fascinating work! However does the population exponential growth take into account the number of people dying? After all, for every person born some die every day...

Yes, because "growth" in this instance is the change in the number of people.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments