3 ms·

"Fundamentally it is a political problem" -- Agreed. What if the whole problem is that of "growth"? Here's one possible chain of thought. I don't fully subscr

by hliyan 8y ago

"Fundamentally it is a political problem" -- Agreed. What if the whole problem is that of "growth"? Here's one possible chain of thought. I don't fully subscribe to this, so please feel free to poke holes in it: 1. The biggest polluters tend to be commercial enterprises 2. They are aware of the environmental impact of their actions, but are reluctant to stop 3. They are staffed by (mostly) normal human beings, but they continue because they are heavily incentivized to show continued growth 4. Businesses can no longer reach a "steady state" -- they must continue growth or be considered failures 5. Growth appears to be demanded by stockholders 6. Stockholders need growth for return on their investments 7. Investments are necessary because of... inflation ? Ergo, stop inflation, slow down growth?

kpmcc 8y ago
Yes. 100x Yes. See Herman Daly on Steady State Economics. Also see https://newleftreview.org/II/111/troy-vettese-to-freeze-the-thames https://newleftreview.org/II/111/troy-vettese-to-freeze-the-... for a critique of Daly's proposals as being not radical enough.
PeterisP 8y ago
No, it doesn't work out that way. First, in order to determine what people will do, the relevant word is not "need" but "want". #6 is that stockholders want growth of return on their investments (because, hey, extra money is good for them). And they'll want that growth to be as big as possible, no matter what the inflation is; so stopping inflation won't remove the pressure for growth. On the other hand, if you want to force people to be satisfied with what they have and not strive for more, well, that's against a lot of our psychology, it's not going to happen - compared to that, getting all the governments to do what needs to be done (while still striving for as much growth is feasible given the restrictions) is easy.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Nope stockholders need return on investment. Sorry. You can't skip that. The problem if you kill this is that it breaks the asset allocation "algorithm" that is capitalism. If we don't have return on investment why wouldn't we spend all our money on, say, gold toilet seats ? Or to put it a bit glib: Why do we need factories to "feed starving children" more than we need gold toilet seats ? Return on investment.
JamesBarney 8y ago
As a stockholders my incentive is to increase my net worth. I do this by investing in companies that produce profits and grow. Now if inflation was to be lowered to 1% or 0% why would I stop being interested in growing companies and getting richer? And while increasing regulations on climate change would be costly, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of stopping GDP growth and would harms tons of individuals who would find it harder to find a job and provide for their family.
- vitro 8y ago
  Richer only for the sake of being rich? After certain threshold, more money doesn't change your lifestyle much, does it? Yes, you can get better, faster cars, but that is just greed in particular, ignorance in general. Hint, you don't NEED that.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    I think you misread my comment. It was not about need but about incentives. Specifically that changing inflation doesn't change incentives. And removing growth from an economy is far more expensive way to prevent climate change than something like a carbon tax. If you are arguing the easiest fix to climate change is to convince everyone to stop being interested in increasing their material wealth. That seems like a hell of an uphill battle. Orders of magnitude harder than passing a really high carbon tax. P.S. getting rich is usually not the terminal goal, but a means to financial security for the middle class, and status for the upper class.

by hliyan 8y ago

kpmcc 8y ago

Yes. 100x Yes. See Herman Daly on Steady State Economics. Also see https://newleftreview.org/II/111/troy-vettese-to-freeze-the-thames https://newleftreview.org/II/111/troy-vettese-to-freeze-the-... for a critique of Daly's proposals as being not radical enough.

PeterisP 8y ago

No, it doesn't work out that way. First, in order to determine what people will do, the relevant word is not "need" but "want". #6 is that stockholders want growth of return on their investments (because, hey, extra money is good for them). And they'll want that growth to be as big as possible, no matter what the inflation is; so stopping inflation won't remove the pressure for growth. On the other hand, if you want to force people to be satisfied with what they have and not strive for more, well, that's against a lot of our psychology, it's not going to happen - compared to that, getting all the governments to do what needs to be done (while still striving for as much growth is feasible given the restrictions) is easy.

candiodari 8y ago
Nope stockholders need return on investment. Sorry. You can't skip that. The problem if you kill this is that it breaks the asset allocation "algorithm" that is capitalism. If we don't have return on investment why wouldn't we spend all our money on, say, gold toilet seats ? Or to put it a bit glib: Why do we need factories to "feed starving children" more than we need gold toilet seats ? Return on investment.

JamesBarney 8y ago

As a stockholders my incentive is to increase my net worth. I do this by investing in companies that produce profits and grow. Now if inflation was to be lowered to 1% or 0% why would I stop being interested in growing companies and getting richer? And while increasing regulations on climate change would be costly, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of stopping GDP growth and would harms tons of individuals who would find it harder to find a job and provide for their family.

vitro 8y ago
Richer only for the sake of being rich? After certain threshold, more money doesn't change your lifestyle much, does it? Yes, you can get better, faster cars, but that is just greed in particular, ignorance in general. Hint, you don't NEED that.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  I think you misread my comment. It was not about need but about incentives. Specifically that changing inflation doesn't change incentives. And removing growth from an economy is far more expensive way to prevent climate change than something like a carbon tax. If you are arguing the easiest fix to climate change is to convince everyone to stop being interested in increasing their material wealth. That seems like a hell of an uphill battle. Orders of magnitude harder than passing a really high carbon tax. P.S. getting rich is usually not the terminal goal, but a means to financial security for the middle class, and status for the upper class.