4 ms·

Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. That's not a moral statement. I personally absolutely aim to

by anm89 5y ago

Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. That's not a moral statement. I personally absolutely aim to reduce my consumption. But we live in a financialized debt based economy. It's about one nuance a way from an actual pyramid scheme except instead of recruiting people what it needs is GDP growth. The whole gig explodes when growth stops. Luckily the US could hypothetically keep growing for a VERY long time where as some other countries (China, Japan) are not going to fare as well (on the time frame of their own demographics curves).

CameronNemo 5y ago
Some people want the union to survive at the expense of so much more, and it shows.
xupybd 5y ago
Exactly, population growth is halting. I don't think we can sustain the same economic systems without population growth.
- anm89 5y ago
  Us population is expected to grow through most of this century.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    Yes but the rate of growth is much lower and the trend is down.
- c0nducktr 5y ago
  The same economic systems have lead, and continue to lead us towards the death our environment. Why keep those systems? We need to improve on those systems, if not reject them entirely.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    Oh yeah I'm talking about improving. Minor tweaks not uprooting the entire thing. I'm also talking about doing so as a reaction to declining population not preemptively. We don't know exactly what the future will look like best to address the needs when they arise. But the change in population growth is going to have a major impact on our world economic system. I'm a big fan of free markets and think our current iteration is one of the best ever, despite it's problems.
Syonyk 5y ago
> Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. I can't really argue - the US financial industry, especially, is built on never-ending exponential growth, and some would argue the financial industry has "decoupled" from the rest of the economy. The whole 2008 tower of cards blowing over certainly would argue for that. How much value can you build on top of a loan that will never be repaid? Answer: Way, way more than you ought to. But if you've built something that can't go on forever, it's reasonable to see that it won't. Exponential growth on a finite planet can't go on forever, and even if you start playing around in space, you just kick the can a bit. The question then becomes, "Do you just let things go on and hope you can kick the can to the next guy's {political term, lifespan, etc}? Or do you try and fix the problem?" The various degrowth/steady state movements are trying to fix the problem, not just kick the can. But if you've built a house of cards that requires GDP growth to even continue existing - that house is going to come down one day.
c0nducktr 5y ago
> Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. That's not a moral statement. I personally absolutely aim to reduce my consumption. But we live in a financialized debt based economy. Yes and it appears we should consider rethinking that economy. > The whole gig explodes when growth stops. And it will. Isn't it better to act preemptively?

by anm89 5y ago

CameronNemo 5y ago

Some people want the union to survive at the expense of so much more, and it shows.

xupybd 5y ago

Exactly, population growth is halting. I don't think we can sustain the same economic systems without population growth.

anm89 5y ago
Us population is expected to grow through most of this century.
- xupybd 5y ago
  Yes but the rate of growth is much lower and the trend is down.
c0nducktr 5y ago
The same economic systems have lead, and continue to lead us towards the death our environment. Why keep those systems? We need to improve on those systems, if not reject them entirely.
- xupybd 5y ago
  Oh yeah I'm talking about improving. Minor tweaks not uprooting the entire thing. I'm also talking about doing so as a reaction to declining population not preemptively. We don't know exactly what the future will look like best to address the needs when they arise. But the change in population growth is going to have a major impact on our world economic system. I'm a big fan of free markets and think our current iteration is one of the best ever, despite it's problems.

Syonyk 5y ago

> Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. I can't really argue - the US financial industry, especially, is built on never-ending exponential growth, and some would argue the financial industry has "decoupled" from the rest of the economy. The whole 2008 tower of cards blowing over certainly would argue for that. How much value can you build on top of a loan that will never be repaid? Answer: Way, way more than you ought to. But if you've built something that can't go on forever, it's reasonable to see that it won't. Exponential growth on a finite planet can't go on forever, and even if you start playing around in space, you just kick the can a bit. The question then becomes, "Do you just let things go on and hope you can kick the can to the next guy's {political term, lifespan, etc}? Or do you try and fix the problem?" The various degrowth/steady state movements are trying to fix the problem, not just kick the can. But if you've built a house of cards that requires GDP growth to even continue existing - that house is going to come down one day.

c0nducktr 5y ago

> Shrinking consumption (ie economic deflation, a decrease in GDP) would absolutely destroy the USA. That's not a moral statement. I personally absolutely aim to reduce my consumption. But we live in a financialized debt based economy. Yes and it appears we should consider rethinking that economy. > The whole gig explodes when growth stops. And it will. Isn't it better to act preemptively?