3 ms·

> And why would "more economic growth" be a good thing? Because billions of people still live in poverty worldwide. > I don't want endlessly slaving to make t

> And why would "more economic growth" be a good thing? Because billions of people still live in poverty worldwide. > I don't want endlessly slaving to make the pie bigger (while ignoring second order effects, from quality of life, to environmental issues, to debt etc). No one does. Economic growth, although not by itself, helps alleviate a lot of these issues. There are other factors that also impact this, and I'd argue a lot of the economic issues we face aren't from too much growth but from these other factors (taxation etc.) not being handled properly. So in general more growth is advantageous, but we have to other things going right as well. > How about we learn to enjoy a moderate rate of economic growth, or even a steady economy, and focus on improving other aspects of life besides bank accounts? Well a lot of people disagree about what things like quality of life and adequate environmental care are. One of the beauties of capitalism is that it allows people with wide disagreements about what's important in life to coexist and even benefit each other. Edit: sorry I didn't see this before: > Under the current model though. Whereas e.g. better distribution of wealth might help them more than more lending. Maybe, but if that better distribution of wealth comes at the cost of shrinking the overall system (which there is a real reason to think would happen: this is why people and corporations bank outside of the US frequently already) then I think it's hard to conclusively argue either way. Again this is not to say I don't see problems with our current economy, I just think "it's growing too much" is not one of them.

coldtea 9y ago
>Because billions of people still live in poverty worldwide. That depends on available resources and distribution -- not economic growth. Besides, what's really bad about poverty is not access to lack of access to West-level consumption but lack of basics -- from health care to housing.
- wdewind 9y ago
  I agree with that. Economic growth can help these issues, but it's not the only, or even the biggest, factor. As I mentioned...
anigbrowl 9y ago
But the causes of poverty are not an insufficiency of economic growth, it's the distribution of the fruits of economic growth. In many places the wealth and/or political power (which are to some extent proxies for each other) are hoarded by a small number of people who have no interest in distributing them. In their view it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a larger pond. Of course this isn't a foolproof strategy (dictators and kings sometimes come to ignominious ends) but holding onto as much wealth and power as possible while keeping the majority of people disenfranchised is a much safer strategy than spreading the benefits as widely as possible and hoping that everyone will love you enough to assure your future security. Well a lot of people disagree about what things like quality of life and adequate environmental care are. One of the beauties of capitalism is that it allows people with wide disagreements about what's important in life to coexist and even benefit each other. Yes, but it doesn't assure that, and that's where it gets ugly. If too much of capital is controlled by someone who doesn't care about the environment and is fine with cutting corners or actively polluting, then the less well-off people suffer and die, sometimes horribly. If that problem gets bad enough, then everyone could suffer as the whole environment is wrecked - like the population of a country whose leader foolishly enters a war and gets bombed, or a world where reckless fossil fuel production/use continues past the point of long-term sustainability. You'll recall that Keynes said 'in the long run, we are all dead.' Capitalism would be great if everyone lived long enough to have their day at the top of the pile, just as it is enjoyable to play Monopoly as a board game because while you might lose one game today you might have the pleasure of winning tomorrow. But people are not economic abstractions; if you're poor and you can't compete effectively in a capitalistic economy then there's a good chance that your life will be terrible, and then you'll die.
- wdewind 9y ago
  I mostly agree with all of this and felt like it was covered by: > Economic growth, although not by itself, helps alleviate a lot of these issues. There are other factors that also impact this, and I'd argue a lot of the economic issues we face aren't from too much growth but from these other factors (taxation etc.) not being handled properly. So in general more growth is advantageous, but we have to other things going right as well.

coldtea 9y ago

>Because billions of people still live in poverty worldwide. That depends on available resources and distribution -- not economic growth. Besides, what's really bad about poverty is not access to lack of access to West-level consumption but lack of basics -- from health care to housing.

wdewind 9y ago
I agree with that. Economic growth can help these issues, but it's not the only, or even the biggest, factor. As I mentioned...

anigbrowl 9y ago

But the causes of poverty are not an insufficiency of economic growth, it's the distribution of the fruits of economic growth. In many places the wealth and/or political power (which are to some extent proxies for each other) are hoarded by a small number of people who have no interest in distributing them. In their view it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a larger pond. Of course this isn't a foolproof strategy (dictators and kings sometimes come to ignominious ends) but holding onto as much wealth and power as possible while keeping the majority of people disenfranchised is a much safer strategy than spreading the benefits as widely as possible and hoping that everyone will love you enough to assure your future security. Well a lot of people disagree about what things like quality of life and adequate environmental care are. One of the beauties of capitalism is that it allows people with wide disagreements about what's important in life to coexist and even benefit each other. Yes, but it doesn't assure that, and that's where it gets ugly. If too much of capital is controlled by someone who doesn't care about the environment and is fine with cutting corners or actively polluting, then the less well-off people suffer and die, sometimes horribly. If that problem gets bad enough, then everyone could suffer as the whole environment is wrecked - like the population of a country whose leader foolishly enters a war and gets bombed, or a world where reckless fossil fuel production/use continues past the point of long-term sustainability. You'll recall that Keynes said 'in the long run, we are all dead.' Capitalism would be great if everyone lived long enough to have their day at the top of the pile, just as it is enjoyable to play Monopoly as a board game because while you might lose one game today you might have the pleasure of winning tomorrow. But people are not economic abstractions; if you're poor and you can't compete effectively in a capitalistic economy then there's a good chance that your life will be terrible, and then you'll die.

wdewind 9y ago
I mostly agree with all of this and felt like it was covered by: > Economic growth, although not by itself, helps alleviate a lot of these issues. There are other factors that also impact this, and I'd argue a lot of the economic issues we face aren't from too much growth but from these other factors (taxation etc.) not being handled properly. So in general more growth is advantageous, but we have to other things going right as well.