Great article, however to say that economic theory as a whole is divorced from reality is a little broad.

If the writer was referring to current mainstream economics, i.e.: Keynesianism, then yes I agree wholeheartedly, and think everything possible should be done to route Keynesians out of universities, and governments across the western world. This is what allows such rubbish to remain gospel, especailly since it seems universities don't teach independent thought, but more how to brown nose lecturers who are omniscient by their own declaration (which I suppose is to be expected, because it's excellent training for the corporate world).

There are, however, other schools of economic thought which are connected to the real world, which differentiate between worthwhile growth, and bubble growth (i.e.: efficient allocation of scarce resources).
These models do not rely on ever expanding growth, and bubble maintenance as Keynes does.
You just don't hear them on the news, or coming from any the utterly incompetent western governments, or self proclaimed "economic experts" as the way out of the trouble we are in, is just not a vote winner.

In a famous speech quoted in Climate Progress today, Bbby Kennedy said:
“We will find neither national purpose nor personal satisfaction in a mere continuation of economic progress, in an endless amassing of worldly goods. We cannot measure national spirit by the Dow Jones Average, nor national achievement by the Gross National Product. For the Gross National Product includes air pollution, and ambulances to clear our highways from carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. The Gross National Product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles and nuclear warheads…. It includes… the broadcasting of television programs which glorify violence to sell goods to our children.
And if the Gross National Product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials… The Gross National Product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America — except whether we are proud to be Americans.”
Ideas repeated by Barack Obama in the New York Times:
“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand…… We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here in America and lay the foundation for our lasting prosperity.” B Obama

Makes you think!

Growth everlasting is capitalism's Achilles heel. It will eventually destroy either us or the capitalist system. I do my damndest every day to make sure it is capitalism that fails and not humanity.

Capitalist economics is a farce with absolutely no correlation between the theory and the reality. It is more of a religion designed to keep the wealthy and powerful in their exalted position in society and to justify their exploitation and subjugation of the masses. And their exploitation and wastefulness of our resources.

Unless we are careful before long corporatism will have overtaken our governments and we will all be slaves to the world of big business with surveillance and big brother and robocop forcing compliance and rooting out "subversion" of capitalist ideals. All those sci fi horror stories could be about to become true. Capitalism will not die easily. But it must die. For the sake of the human race and all we have achieved.

Lets look at this statement in the article

The impact of the doubling of that labour pool can be seen in a business like Wal-Mart. It employs the same number of employees as General Motors did in the 30s yet in real terms the wages of Wal-Mart’s employees are about a third of what GM’s employees were taking home in the 30s.

This is typical of the unsourced sillyness that pervades the article. Who is saying this? What part of GM and what class of employees are we talking about in both instances.. For that matter what part of the 30s? I suspect that is important, considering the economy went into deep depression in the early part of it.. What studies is the author refering to in other, rather puzzling assertions throughout the article? There is a substantial literature on the growth in salaries and salary differential between different classes of employment. However, there is very little doubt that the overall standard of living has risen, substantially, over the decades but if the author wants to make an argument for a decline in the standard of living he should make it rather than simply assert that it is so.. I would be interested in the argument.
The bit about limits of growth has been kicked around quite a bit now. the problem is that whenever someone tries to put to a limit, or someplace restriction or place where the growth should stop the economy proves them wrong by sailing on regardless.

Fantastic and incomprehensible tripe re western economics in the 70s. No mention of stagflation or OPEC price hike or food chain break throughs. Once again usual apocalyptic comments re human helplessness in face of future challenges.

Revisionism through the single fish eye lens of whacko and extreme socio-bio environmental politics.

No mention of changing means or distribution of production. Predictable claims of uselessness of economic theory and market economics from bearded gnomes who measure people as energy consuming units.

I don't mind being fitted up for your 'end of the earth cull program' but cut the silly revisionism.

No doubt many have seen the quote;

Anyone who believes in infinite growth in a finite world is
either a madman or an economist.

I posted this on another thread.

The recurring theme in this and other threads is that money comes into
being by the generation of credit/debt in the government/banking system.
Fair enough, but if interest could not be paid then the system would
fall apart. Now, my understanding is that it is growth that enables
the payment of interest out of the growth in the business.

However growth is not dependent on money but energy.
In a time of depletion of energy there will have to be a failure to
pay interest.
This is what happened last year.
In fact, it was also capital that could not be repaid.

In these new circumstances we will have to invent a quite different
financial model.