3 ms·
The basic social problem is that the absence of economic growth turns economies into zero-sum operations. In order for anyone to get ahead, someone, somewhere e
by yokem55 6y ago
The basic social problem is that the absence of economic growth turns economies into zero-sum operations. In order for anyone to get ahead, someone, somewhere else must lose. Historically, zero-sum economies make for some pretty shitty living standards for most folks.
Growth, at least in the short term (the 50-100 year timescale), makes it possible to have an economy where gains can be had without necessarily making other folks lose. The downside here is that growth can only go for so long before resource constraints of one form or another bite everyone in the butt.
- zip1234 6y agoA country can still improve wealth and health of the citizens without an increasing GDP. If work is spent on impactful areas that make people's lives better. Motion is not necessarily progress. "Growth" where we spend loads of money building out unused infrastructure is empty growth.
- anm89 6y agoThis is utter nonsense. It treats peoples lives as the sum of GDPesque production data. GDP, or counting how many buildings and streets and strip malls were built is a totally seperate axis from quality of life. A town could shrink while every single person's life in that town increases because it changes the structure and quality of their of lives.
- imtringued 6y agoThe problem is that you need a certain population density to pay for maintenance of infrastructure. It's like running a business. If you can break even, you can expand your business endlessly. If you are even just a single dollar short it just doesn't work out. Suburbia is not just a dollar short. It's making substantial losses while providing very little to show for it.