My mistake, in thinking the money stays around (indeed, the Crash Course does say that money is destroyed when loans are repaid or defaulted). However, the money supply does tend to increase. As money is being loaned into existence, it seems reasonable to suppose that most money currently in existence is backed by debt somewhere in the system. And to keep the money supply from shrinking, more has to be loaned into existence, as loans are paid back. Thus GDP has to grow, since the money is spent on stuff.

Since banks charge interest (and sometimes make other charges) and want to make a profit, the borrowers have to try to earn more money (increasing GDP) to avoid having a declining standard of living.

Our way of life requires economic growth but economic growth is unsustainable. There is an excess of optimism in sustainable growth.

Real (adjusted for inflation) GDP does not have to grow given the level of debt present, however due to inflation, absolute (not adjusted for inflation) GDP tends to grow. I'm hesitant to say it has to grow since it can stay the same, with real GDP declining, up to some point. On the flip side, given some average level of lending over a time period long enough to preclude absolute GDP from staying the same given whatever rate f inflation, absolute GDP has to increase, however real GDP can stay the same more or less.
That's always true of lending regardless of whether or not we're looking at a FRB system or not. A banking system charging interest, regardless of whether or not it's a FRB system, will lower the standard of living of those who it's earning interest from, all other things being equal, because it's making a profit. Course that's too simplistic, since all other things are never equal, but what you're talking about is a function of profit, at least one-sided profit, not FRB.

Is that an opinion or statement of fact?

Do you think our way of life (which includes our aspirations and plans for the future, as well as having to take into account a generally ageing, if increasing, population) does not require growth? Of course my statement is an opinion but I've yet to read anything which is a convincing argument that a steady state economy would enable a way of life that we currently "enjoy".

Regardless of the hypothetical possibility that GDP does not have to grow to service debt, it seems unthinkable that a non-growing GDP would satisfy anyone who doesn't want things to change.

As a possibility it's quite practical. Over the past year for instance, GDP has fallen in the states while consumer credit and mortgage debt have also fallen because people are diverting more of their income to service debt/interest, and are successfully reducing debt, and naturally the interest paid on that debt, while GDP was contracting.

In terms of someone who doesn't want things to change, it seems very thinkable that they would want a non-growing GDP. They would also want a non-shrinking GDP, because, well, they are someone who doesn't want things, presumably including GDP, to change.

I doubt anyone knows enough about the aspirations and plans for the future of 6+ billion people, even assuming they had accurately quantified 6+ billion ways of life, which is more or less impossible AFAIK, to determine if it requires growth (Growth in what?), myself included.
At one point in time wealthy white land owners couldn't think of a way of life w/o slaves that they could "enjoy", yet here we are today, and I imagine there are a lot more people enjoying life than would've otherwise w/ slavery. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we will enjoy our way of life in the future, but I also wouldn't say that we will not enjoy our way of life in the future. Odds are we'll stumble along, creating new problems for ourselves and fixing them, aka adapting, until we can't and that's that. I don't think the concrete issues today constitute a that's that problem, IMO of course, but who knows what will happen in the future.

Do you have a reference for this falling debt in the US? Would that just be defaulted loans? I doubt anyone is happy at a shrinking GDP, except, it seems, you. All you keep pointing out is some hypothetical reality where a highly unlikely scenario is possible. Our economies and societies require growth, to avoid collapse. That is a practical statement, rather than a hypothetical one.
Why did you even bother to type that crap? Why do you keep being a semantic twerp?

Which is what we're trying to discuss in many of these forums. Your posts are usually pointless, except to you and shortonsense. I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here except, maybe, argue for argument's sake.

Why would they do that? For a possible answer, check out Chris Martenson's crash course, in which it may become clear that all new money loaned into existence, or printed by a federal agency, backed by debt.

Go check out the federal reserve statistics.
Nope. Mortgage debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and so on are all falling. As a whole people and organizations seem to be taking on less debt and paying off what they have due to the recession and economic uncertainty as well as a reduction in credit availability.
I'm not happy or unhappy about it. It's the likely result of the credit bubble. If GDP increases at an unsustainable, in the short run, rate, then it's likely to slow down after that expansion. Recessionary cycles aren't anything new.
What I've pointed to in this post, a reduction in debt during a recession, is not hypothetical. It's happening right now.
It's also a fallacious statement. Our societies have undergone periods where they did not grow, but they also did not collapse. The only thing our societies require to avoid collapse is avoiding collapse. GDP can go up, down, and so on, as long as it doesn't go to nothing or next to nothing, the society has not collapsed.
Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks when you don't like someone's response? Even when the response is simply a literal statement with no insults, unlike you response? Why did pstarr resort to a violent threat/violent joke when he didn't like my response to something way back when?

Probably to prevent the collapse of the banking industry due to the credit bubble as well as the liquidity trap associated with the massive sell off of all those assets on top of the cascade of business bankruptcies associated with companies who no longer had access to the credit required to function and that liquidity trap.

Given the option of temporarily loaning banks enough to cover their balance sheets and write down losses over time is preferable to an economic downturn worse than the great depression. Obviously it hasn't been very fair on a bank by bank basis, but for most I'm guessing they think it's better than something worse than the great depression.
I looks like you didn't finish you sentence. It may become clear that all new money loaned into existence, or printed by a federal agency, backed by debt, is what?

In a metaphysical sense, sure, everything is linked with everything else.

But that does not make everything CAUSALLY related to everything else based on whichever is the looney tunes flavor of the day.

Hubberts 1956 treatise did not CAUSE fine young Saudi citizens to fly planes into buildings. The ensuing actual America peak crude in the early 1970's did not CAUSE millions of greedy Americans to suddenly lose track of their senses and decide that their homes really were worth x% more all of sudden because of the perpetual growth machine they mistaken confused with speculative real estate investment.

Unfortunate you don't get a chance to read a paper, watch the news, maybe the occasional book?

Heck, even JD's blog would suffice on this particular topic.

Yeah, and its yesplease and I with a semantics problem.

There is no such thing as sustainable growth on this planet unless someone is myopic or playing the usual internet symantic games. No amount of resource saved, conserved, or left in the ground, no amount of population high or low, no amount of pretend sustainable organization or personal cutsy "save the whales" philosophy changes the amount of hydrogen available to the local nuclear furnace.

Pretending anything else is where the excess of optimism originates from.

If ya wanna troll TP, the HOF will be happy to have you. Saying other poster's posts, ironically the posts of those posters who disagree w/ ya, are pointless, or that they are posting crap is not an on topic constructive response.

I resort to ad hominem because it seems you don't engage your brain when posters are trying to have a discussion using the common language. It seems that unless every i is dotted, every t is crossed and every word is carefully chosen, you pipe up with a completely useless comment - and you continue over many posts, choosing not to engage your brain to think about the meaning of the posts. It takes the discussion nowhere. You occasionally have the odd valid point to make but it gets lost in the semantic drivel that you smear these boards with. I don't know why you do it. I really don't.

Thanks for providing another piece of evidence for my previous post. Try adding an "is" somewhere in there. I'm sure you'll figure it out, given time.

Nope, nothing in those places that even hints of a transition to sustainability. I wonder what you read (pronounced "red").

So you resort to an ad hominem attack because you want to make another (the other poster doesn't engage their brain) ad hominem attack when someone asks you why you made the first?
Here's a crazy idea Tony. Instead of insulting other posters when you think they've made a useless comment, why not ignore the comment?
And I don't know why you d00mc0pians resort to personal insults and criminal threats when someone else disagrees with your posts. That's just the way it is. Y'all are certainly insulting and possibly (hopefully not) murderously violent.

Right back at'cha buddy!

I gotcha. In that case, did you really need Chris's crash course to figure out that in a contemporary fiat money system, the money supply is regulated by banks?