3 ms·

For those interested in learning more about the agrowth perspective, and how investment in public commons can be a convincing solution I highly recommend Jason

by xbpx 5y ago

For those interested in learning more about the agrowth perspective, and how investment in public commons can be a convincing solution I highly recommend Jason Hickel's work, specifically his book "Less is More". If you want the deep dive treatment I've just finished Thomas Piketty's "Capital and Ideology" and was very impressed with the thorough historical treatment. https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980822 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980822

heyn05tradamu5 5y ago
Hickel gets basic facts wrong and distorts the views of his critics. The thread below walks through some of the basic errors he makes. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1378730932308471809 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1378730932308471809
- xbpx 5y ago
  Actually it's quite easy to poke holes in that rebuttal provided by the linked article in Max's tweet. Basically there is a lot hidden by looking at average income per person per country when inequality has risen dramatically everywhere. The 2nd link I posted delves into this deeply and I suggest reading that instead of short form hit pieces and tweets. (That applies to Jason and Max, they're both guilty of window dressing)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> investment in public commons Investment in commons is something rich societies do. If we're predicated on a collapse hypothesis, the rich will focus on survival and power. That returns us to a zero-growth, zero-sum environment, which almost linearly leads to militarization. (If I have a choice between investing in research or buying munitions, and I believe society is about to collapse, I do the latter.) Between an army and a law defining XYZ as a common good, the army wins.

3 ms·

For those interested in learning more about the agrowth perspective, and how investment in public commons can be a convincing solution I highly recommend Jason

by xbpx 5y ago

heyn05tradamu5 5y ago
Hickel gets basic facts wrong and distorts the views of his critics. The thread below walks through some of the basic errors he makes. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1378730932308471809 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1378730932308471809
- xbpx 5y ago
  Actually it's quite easy to poke holes in that rebuttal provided by the linked article in Max's tweet. Basically there is a lot hidden by looking at average income per person per country when inequality has risen dramatically everywhere. The 2nd link I posted delves into this deeply and I suggest reading that instead of short form hit pieces and tweets. (That applies to Jason and Max, they're both guilty of window dressing)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> investment in public commons Investment in commons is something rich societies do. If we're predicated on a collapse hypothesis, the rich will focus on survival and power. That returns us to a zero-growth, zero-sum environment, which almost linearly leads to militarization. (If I have a choice between investing in research or buying munitions, and I believe society is about to collapse, I do the latter.) Between an army and a law defining XYZ as a common good, the army wins.