🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <l2tggdINN83h@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 21160@unocal.com, stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>> There are serious mathematical flaws with this model.
>> It was the fad in the 60s and 70s to use "systems theory" where first-order
>> difference equations link state variables.  The solution to most of these
>> equations are exponentials in time.  Therefore, given enough time each state
>> variable takes one of three values: a constant, zero, or infinity.
>> That is why Rome models always spells doom, because the simplistic mathematics
>> goes to zero or inifinity.

Well, that fits with just about every major cosmological model. :-)

>
>Obviously, they did not catch all the minor feedback loops that buffer real
>trends -- or their model would not have yielded some of the wild swings that it
>did. 
>

They consistently omitted one of the major types of feedback loops in
a market economy.  As a commodity is consumed and becomes more scarce,
the price increases.  In response to the price increase, the rate
of consumption declines.

It was pretty bold to dispense with the foundations of the field
of resource economics.  This strikes me as a major flaw in the
model.  They presented no argument in favour of such a radical
move.  This is a critical flaw in the presentation of the
study.

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.