5 ms·

Did they actually think that growth would happen forever, that it was infinite. Time to switch to non-growth economic models and assume that the markets have re

by x5n1 11y ago

Did they actually think that growth would happen forever, that it was infinite. Time to switch to non-growth economic models and assume that the markets have reached equilibrium.

jerf 11y ago
If there are limits to growth, we aren't necessarily near them. Growth isn't all about mining more atoms out of the Earth, it's also about information and more sophisticated arrangements of those same atoms. If it were just atoms, "growth" would have slowed down a while ago. I see no evidence that markets have attained equilibrium. At the very least, the entire planet would need to be raised to a middle-class lifestyle first.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  > At the very least, the entire planet would need to be raised to a middle-class lifestyle first. Solar system I think, lifting 10 billion people (UN Estimate for 2050) to a middle class lifestyle will probably require more resources than we can find on Earth alone. Energy, metals even hydrocarbons (though we probably need to burn less of those but most fertalisers/plastics require them) are all out there for the taking.
  - jerf 11y ago
    Yeah, I was tempted to put that disclaimer of sorts in... people tend to assume "middle-class lifestyle" must be a linear projection of the American middle-class lifestyle. But, virtually by definition, the first "middle-class lifestyle" is the most primitive one. It doesn't mean everyone on the planet needs a hydrocarbon-based car that spews leaded fumes into the air, a 3000-square foot bespoke-constructed house on .5 acres in the suburbs, etc. etc. It just means everyone is going to want a middle-class lifestyle; if that means a bit more density, renting self-driving electric cars instead of owning (since we're still talking decades here), living in more pre-fabbed houses (or other structures) made out of more sustainable materials hooked to Nest-like climate control for efficiency, etc. etc., that's fine. A lot of things have been shrinking and getting more efficient lately. The world of 2050 will want 2050 middle-class lifestyles, not 1960s middle-class lifestyles.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      A suburban lawn is such an egregious use of land. The middle class of the 1950s was grotesque and arrogant.
      - smithkl42 11y ago
        This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they were distinctively more "grotesque and arrogant" than today is kinda silly. You want grotesque? Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. You want arrogant? Look at the comment above.
        danharaj 11y ago
        > Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.
        smithkl42 11y ago
        I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.
marincounty 11y ago
I'm with you. I don't see much growth. It's time to batten the hatches. I'm not a Rebublican, but we have too many laws, and regulations. It's stifling in business, and on a personal level. Every day, I think, "What law, or potential fine will I possibly get today. Ever business decision is made with the legality of the move front and center. I don't like living like this. It's like they castrated me. I never thought America would turn into this.
- cmurf 11y ago
  The Death of Common Sense, Philip K Howard (1994). So not exactly the newest idea, by HN standards anyway.
branchless 11y ago
We badly need to define growth. In the UK and the US growth is defined as an increase in GDP which itself is linked to increasing the money supply. Most new money is issued via mortgage lending and yet house prices are not accounted for fully in inflation. Therefore the GDP deflator is too small. And voila - house prices up, not a damn thing built or done and you have growth. Growth should reflect increasing living standards, not growth in economic rent extraction.

by x5n1 11y ago

Did they actually think that growth would happen forever, that it was infinite. Time to switch to non-growth economic models and assume that the markets have reached equilibrium.

jerf 11y ago

If there are limits to growth, we aren't necessarily near them. Growth isn't all about mining more atoms out of the Earth, it's also about information and more sophisticated arrangements of those same atoms. If it were just atoms, "growth" would have slowed down a while ago. I see no evidence that markets have attained equilibrium. At the very least, the entire planet would need to be raised to a middle-class lifestyle first.

noir_lord 11y ago
> At the very least, the entire planet would need to be raised to a middle-class lifestyle first. Solar system I think, lifting 10 billion people (UN Estimate for 2050) to a middle class lifestyle will probably require more resources than we can find on Earth alone. Energy, metals even hydrocarbons (though we probably need to burn less of those but most fertalisers/plastics require them) are all out there for the taking.
- jerf 11y ago
  Yeah, I was tempted to put that disclaimer of sorts in... people tend to assume "middle-class lifestyle" must be a linear projection of the American middle-class lifestyle. But, virtually by definition, the first "middle-class lifestyle" is the most primitive one. It doesn't mean everyone on the planet needs a hydrocarbon-based car that spews leaded fumes into the air, a 3000-square foot bespoke-constructed house on .5 acres in the suburbs, etc. etc. It just means everyone is going to want a middle-class lifestyle; if that means a bit more density, renting self-driving electric cars instead of owning (since we're still talking decades here), living in more pre-fabbed houses (or other structures) made out of more sustainable materials hooked to Nest-like climate control for efficiency, etc. etc., that's fine. A lot of things have been shrinking and getting more efficient lately. The world of 2050 will want 2050 middle-class lifestyles, not 1960s middle-class lifestyles.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    A suburban lawn is such an egregious use of land. The middle class of the 1950s was grotesque and arrogant.
    - smithkl42 11y ago
      This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they were distinctively more "grotesque and arrogant" than today is kinda silly. You want grotesque? Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. You want arrogant? Look at the comment above.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        > Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.
        smithkl42 11y ago
        I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.

marincounty 11y ago

I'm with you. I don't see much growth. It's time to batten the hatches. I'm not a Rebublican, but we have too many laws, and regulations. It's stifling in business, and on a personal level. Every day, I think, "What law, or potential fine will I possibly get today. Ever business decision is made with the legality of the move front and center. I don't like living like this. It's like they castrated me. I never thought America would turn into this.

cmurf 11y ago
The Death of Common Sense, Philip K Howard (1994). So not exactly the newest idea, by HN standards anyway.

branchless 11y ago

We badly need to define growth. In the UK and the US growth is defined as an increase in GDP which itself is linked to increasing the money supply. Most new money is issued via mortgage lending and yet house prices are not accounted for fully in inflation. Therefore the GDP deflator is too small. And voila - house prices up, not a damn thing built or done and you have growth. Growth should reflect increasing living standards, not growth in economic rent extraction.