4 ms·
> It's too late now, but it would be lovely to go back in time, say 50 years, and keep plugging away with attempts to undermine the ideologies: there is no such
by darawk 8y ago
> It's too late now, but it would be lovely to go back in time, say 50 years, and keep plugging away with attempts to undermine the ideologies: there is no such thing as an 'economy', still less 'economic growth' (and as for 'sustainable' growth ...).
You think that because a think isn't concrete it doesn't exist? Growth is a real thing, whether you like it or not, and it has lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty and hardship.
The average person is much better off than they were 100 years ago. That is a direct, inalienable consequence of growth. If you think there is something (e.g. the environment) that is worth more than that, there's certainly cases to be made for that, but that is a value judgment. But it is absolutely not true that growth does not exist or is not important.
- mikestew 8y agoThe average person is much better off than they were 100 years ago. That is a direct, inalienable consequence of growth. I believe what is at stake here is that another possible direct, inalienable consequence of growth is that the average person 100 years from now is worse off than we are now, because we squandered their future in the name of growth. To ignore this might lead one to miss a lot parent’s point.
- darawk 8y agoThat is a real problem, though I would respond by saying that that is really a consequence of a flaw in the capitalist system we have, rather than a critique of capitalism itself. Which is that if private actors have an incentive to externalize their costs onto a public commons (e.g. the environment), we simply need to find a way to appropriately price and charge for that externality.