4 ms·

This may be bad for the economy, but to me this sounds like a good thing? People are lowering their spending and carbon footprint. Now if this is because they l

This may be bad for the economy, but to me this sounds like a good thing? People are lowering their spending and carbon footprint. Now if this is because they legitimately can't afford it, that's different; but cutting consumption is generally good.

opportune 8y ago
Cutting unnecessary consumption is good, but generally in market-oriented / capitalist economies you need consumption in some form to drive the economy. Cutting consumption can result in pretty big ripple effects as not only retailers and physical good extractors/manufacturers get hurt, but all the businesses servicing them get hurt too. Lowering consumption in the US, for example, would hurt Google and Microsoft a lot. In addition to the imports, it sounds like a lot of the problem is due to rising rents and housing prices. I’m basically a broken clock on this, but a “strong” housing market is not necessarily good for the economy. Increasing home prices and rents can wipe out real growth the same way inflation can
- BadassFractal 8y ago
  That's interesting. My econ understanding is pretty wimpy, so excuse the basic question here: is the broader theory here that "rising rents + increasing housing prices" = some sort of rent-seeking capitalism, whereas consumption of the not-real-estate kind is actually sustainable, desirable and beneficial long term?
  - opportune 8y ago
    I’m no economist either, but it’s not rocket science to figure out that when rents increase on housing without improvements, you are losing quality of life (if we account for inflation) - though theoretically the rent increase could actually reflect the area becoming nicer / more convenient. Consumption of real estate is fine when it means building real estate that will actually be used (which China is doing a lot of, even though some is unused). It’s bad when it essentially becomes speculation on property values, and I would argue that it’s also bad when property values rise and that wealth creation is only captured by incumbents / people that got in the market at the right time. Other consumption can be non sustainable, but at least it often directly leads to some quality of life improvement that a rent hike may not.
    - BadassFractal 8y ago
      I guess you could argue that increases in rent increase the spending power of landlords benefitting from it, who now spend more money on goods, which in turn energizes the economy etc etc. I have no idea how that actually plays out in the real world. The whole "trickle down" theory seems very ideologically charged.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Not having kids is a personally financially prudent decision but not so for society (it causes huge demographic problems if there aren’t enough kids).
- mac01021 8y ago
  Unless you can substitute automation for the kids that are supposed to enter the workforce. Or unless demand for labor decreases along with the decline of the workforce.
remir 8y ago
Going forward, it's clear that humanity, in order to have a desirable future, will have to consume and waste less resources and will also have to think about the number of people on the planet. Being forced to consume less because you can't afford it in the moment is one thing. Being forced to consume less because there's less resource to use and transform, is a different thing.

opportune 8y ago

Cutting unnecessary consumption is good, but generally in market-oriented / capitalist economies you need consumption in some form to drive the economy. Cutting consumption can result in pretty big ripple effects as not only retailers and physical good extractors/manufacturers get hurt, but all the businesses servicing them get hurt too. Lowering consumption in the US, for example, would hurt Google and Microsoft a lot. In addition to the imports, it sounds like a lot of the problem is due to rising rents and housing prices. I’m basically a broken clock on this, but a “strong” housing market is not necessarily good for the economy. Increasing home prices and rents can wipe out real growth the same way inflation can

BadassFractal 8y ago
That's interesting. My econ understanding is pretty wimpy, so excuse the basic question here: is the broader theory here that "rising rents + increasing housing prices" = some sort of rent-seeking capitalism, whereas consumption of the not-real-estate kind is actually sustainable, desirable and beneficial long term?
- opportune 8y ago
  I’m no economist either, but it’s not rocket science to figure out that when rents increase on housing without improvements, you are losing quality of life (if we account for inflation) - though theoretically the rent increase could actually reflect the area becoming nicer / more convenient. Consumption of real estate is fine when it means building real estate that will actually be used (which China is doing a lot of, even though some is unused). It’s bad when it essentially becomes speculation on property values, and I would argue that it’s also bad when property values rise and that wealth creation is only captured by incumbents / people that got in the market at the right time. Other consumption can be non sustainable, but at least it often directly leads to some quality of life improvement that a rent hike may not.
  - BadassFractal 8y ago
    I guess you could argue that increases in rent increase the spending power of landlords benefitting from it, who now spend more money on goods, which in turn energizes the economy etc etc. I have no idea how that actually plays out in the real world. The whole "trickle down" theory seems very ideologically charged.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Not having kids is a personally financially prudent decision but not so for society (it causes huge demographic problems if there aren’t enough kids).

mac01021 8y ago
Unless you can substitute automation for the kids that are supposed to enter the workforce. Or unless demand for labor decreases along with the decline of the workforce.

remir 8y ago

Going forward, it's clear that humanity, in order to have a desirable future, will have to consume and waste less resources and will also have to think about the number of people on the planet. Being forced to consume less because you can't afford it in the moment is one thing. Being forced to consume less because there's less resource to use and transform, is a different thing.