4 ms·

Well, not to worry, most people won't make "the sacrifice". Maybe if we transitioned to a production based economy but producing only quality items we needed.

Well, not to worry, most people won't make "the sacrifice". Maybe if we transitioned to a production based economy but producing only quality items we needed. That way we wouldn't have to work so much. Unemployment would go down because people weren't scrambling for the the ability to consume. Concepts like planned obsolescence would go away. A lot of what we refer to as "growth" is just an indicator that the volume of economic transactions is going up. However, just because the economy is getting bigger doesn't necessarily mean it's getting better. Breaking windows and replacing them creates economic growth, but it doesn't make the house better.

ahsanhilal 15y ago
Well you have a point, and this model of an alternative economy based on self-sustenance, producing what we need is something that is being tested by a philosopher Frithjof Bergmann. Unlike most (read all) philosophers, Bergmann actually practices his ideas which are detailed in his book, "on Being Free". He talks about such an economy based on producing little and necessary items within communes and trading them amongst each other: http://newworknewculture.com/content/frithjof-bergmann http://newworknewculture.com/content/frithjof-bergmann They are actually applying New Work to various parts of the world including South Africa, Iraq (in Kurdistan) etc. I know this because in undergrad I worked with him on this project for a year. However, the main problem regarding an alternate system is quite philosophical; that what is the basic human condition? Hobbes came up with an answer calling life "nasty, brutish and short" and that our animal spritis needed to be kindered. In government we did it through Rousseau's suggestions that we need a system through which we do not kill each other. I don't kill and take your money/land, and you do the same for me. In economics, we came up with an answer through capitalism, and saw the biggest implosion of wealth ever in the 20th century. So it is hard to argue against that capitalistic/democratic mindset unless there is a viable alternative especially in the US, where it has worked the best for the better part of the century. As far as crises go, we have seen destruction and subsequent creation of wealth throughout this century, so that is not a reason to give up I think. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/stockmarket-returns-20th-century http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/stockmarke...
- westicle 15y ago
  I don't think implosion means what you think it means.

ahsanhilal 15y ago

Well you have a point, and this model of an alternative economy based on self-sustenance, producing what we need is something that is being tested by a philosopher Frithjof Bergmann. Unlike most (read all) philosophers, Bergmann actually practices his ideas which are detailed in his book, "on Being Free". He talks about such an economy based on producing little and necessary items within communes and trading them amongst each other: http://newworknewculture.com/content/frithjof-bergmann http://newworknewculture.com/content/frithjof-bergmann They are actually applying New Work to various parts of the world including South Africa, Iraq (in Kurdistan) etc. I know this because in undergrad I worked with him on this project for a year. However, the main problem regarding an alternate system is quite philosophical; that what is the basic human condition? Hobbes came up with an answer calling life "nasty, brutish and short" and that our animal spritis needed to be kindered. In government we did it through Rousseau's suggestions that we need a system through which we do not kill each other. I don't kill and take your money/land, and you do the same for me. In economics, we came up with an answer through capitalism, and saw the biggest implosion of wealth ever in the 20th century. So it is hard to argue against that capitalistic/democratic mindset unless there is a viable alternative especially in the US, where it has worked the best for the better part of the century. As far as crises go, we have seen destruction and subsequent creation of wealth throughout this century, so that is not a reason to give up I think. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/stockmarket-returns-20th-century http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/stockmarke...

westicle 15y ago
I don't think implosion means what you think it means.