4 ms·

I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be... For thousands of years of our existence, progress was very slow and sometimes we went in reverse in some region

by mc32 4y ago

I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be... For thousands of years of our existence, progress was very slow and sometimes we went in reverse in some regions. Economic growth plus innovation resulted in progress and pulled the 99% who were not wealthy out of utter subsistence poverty over the last few hundred years. Also, we cannot grow forever (unless we figure out how to colonize other planets). We have to figure out how to live in a worldwide demographic "Japan" zero to negative pop growth, decline and be comfortable and work with it. New generations don't have to be richer than the last. We can achieve some maintainable level of comfort and be okay with that. Of course the assumption of growth underpins most modern societies, as far as I know, but we will have to find a new model for a new reality.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
recent graeber/wengrow research shows your understanding of human progress is way out of date
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - mc32 4y ago
    I think they aim to say that ancients weren't dumb dullards. Which I don't think people are saying they were so. We're saying that to get where we are took as long as it took humanity to get where we are (Outside of some fabulous thinking that there existed "modern" historical societies that disappeared). When Hobbes said life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short' he was referring to life outside of the outcast's society.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      speaking more to the progress part
  - dataflow 4y ago
    I haven't really read it to know the relevance, but I think this is the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber-wengrow-dawn-of-everything-history-humanity/620177/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber...
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      The author of that article would not know a steelman if it hit them in the face. The "conventional account" of human history they describe is one that I personally have never heard espoused and I am not quite sure if anyone really ever believed. I think I would prefer to read the general source material, I find professional "essayists" often tiresome to read.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        “the dawn of everything”, or you can find papers they’ve published
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jrochkind1 4y ago
> New generations don't have to be richer than the last. We can achieve some maintainable level of comfort and be okay with that. I think 1950s USA middle-class was probably comfortable enough, certainly it was far far from "utter subsistence poverty" -- if the entire world population can live at 1950s USA middle-class levels, without destroying the ecology that sustains us, we should count ourselves lucky (it's not clear we can). Note that was without computers, cell phones. It was much more expensive clothing you'd keep until it wore out. Maybe only one car per family (or less) with more public transportation. Fewer airplane flights. Etc.
pyuser583 4y ago
Why can’t we have economic growth forever? Economic growth is fueled largely by innovation. What it is the barrier to perpetual innovation? Will Apple say “Sorry, no more new iPhone versions. All out of ideas?” And all their competitors agree?
- mc32 4y ago
  I think we can separate innovation from growth. I think we can agree that we have resource limitations (whether it be livable space or ploughable land). Modern economies work on the premise of growing markets. Whether creating new markets or taking over old markets. With a steady state or shrinking population, you can value add and you can innovate, but there are no new "China market(s)" to expand into. If growth were not fundamental, then companies would not look to expand beyond their borders (whether local, regional, national or international). How would companies in modern economies survive if they should predict shrinking markets? Consumerism buys you some time (you need the iPhone umpteenth), at some point a hammer is good enough --with corner-case exceptions.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I don’t agree that there are absolute resource restrictions. Matter doesn’t become a resource unless it’s economically useful. 5 kilotons of cadmium may or not be a resource depending on your business. The world is full of ex resources we haven’t exhausted. There’s no shortage of bat guano or saltpeter. Mercury used to be vital, now it’s value is usually negative. There’s plenty of raw matter that’s useless now that will he extremely valuable in the future. And will eventually have awkward afterlife as an ex-resource. Like bat guano.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  > What it is the barrier to perpetual innovation? Physics and humans shortsightedness. There are limited resources on Earth and by the looks of it we're stuck here for the long haul.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
numpad0 4y ago
We can financially grow forever even in a negative population growth, so long that inflation continues and "imaginary" growth counts towards growth. You can add more and more hype to products and let novelty take over "real" price to keep economies bloating, and to keep ahead of competitors as well by circumventing price rigidity. It's a horrible thing that cause wealth concentration because hype is easier to create for resourceful, but the point is, it's reality than possibility.

by mc32 4y ago

wahnfrieden 4y ago

recent graeber/wengrow research shows your understanding of human progress is way out of date

whimsicalism 4y ago
Care to elaborate?
- mc32 4y ago
  I think they aim to say that ancients weren't dumb dullards. Which I don't think people are saying they were so. We're saying that to get where we are took as long as it took humanity to get where we are (Outside of some fabulous thinking that there existed "modern" historical societies that disappeared). When Hobbes said life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short' he was referring to life outside of the outcast's society.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    speaking more to the progress part
- dataflow 4y ago
  I haven't really read it to know the relevance, but I think this is the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber-wengrow-dawn-of-everything-history-humanity/620177/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber...
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    The author of that article would not know a steelman if it hit them in the face. The "conventional account" of human history they describe is one that I personally have never heard espoused and I am not quite sure if anyone really ever believed. I think I would prefer to read the general source material, I find professional "essayists" often tiresome to read.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      “the dawn of everything”, or you can find papers they’ve published

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jrochkind1 4y ago

> New generations don't have to be richer than the last. We can achieve some maintainable level of comfort and be okay with that. I think 1950s USA middle-class was probably comfortable enough, certainly it was far far from "utter subsistence poverty" -- if the entire world population can live at 1950s USA middle-class levels, without destroying the ecology that sustains us, we should count ourselves lucky (it's not clear we can). Note that was without computers, cell phones. It was much more expensive clothing you'd keep until it wore out. Maybe only one car per family (or less) with more public transportation. Fewer airplane flights. Etc.

pyuser583 4y ago

Why can’t we have economic growth forever? Economic growth is fueled largely by innovation. What it is the barrier to perpetual innovation? Will Apple say “Sorry, no more new iPhone versions. All out of ideas?” And all their competitors agree?

mc32 4y ago
I think we can separate innovation from growth. I think we can agree that we have resource limitations (whether it be livable space or ploughable land). Modern economies work on the premise of growing markets. Whether creating new markets or taking over old markets. With a steady state or shrinking population, you can value add and you can innovate, but there are no new "China market(s)" to expand into. If growth were not fundamental, then companies would not look to expand beyond their borders (whether local, regional, national or international). How would companies in modern economies survive if they should predict shrinking markets? Consumerism buys you some time (you need the iPhone umpteenth), at some point a hammer is good enough --with corner-case exceptions.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I don’t agree that there are absolute resource restrictions. Matter doesn’t become a resource unless it’s economically useful. 5 kilotons of cadmium may or not be a resource depending on your business. The world is full of ex resources we haven’t exhausted. There’s no shortage of bat guano or saltpeter. Mercury used to be vital, now it’s value is usually negative. There’s plenty of raw matter that’s useless now that will he extremely valuable in the future. And will eventually have awkward afterlife as an ex-resource. Like bat guano.
Aperocky 4y ago
> What it is the barrier to perpetual innovation? Physics and humans shortsightedness. There are limited resources on Earth and by the looks of it we're stuck here for the long haul.
- pyuser583 4y ago

numpad0 4y ago

We can financially grow forever even in a negative population growth, so long that inflation continues and "imaginary" growth counts towards growth. You can add more and more hype to products and let novelty take over "real" price to keep economies bloating, and to keep ahead of competitors as well by circumventing price rigidity. It's a horrible thing that cause wealth concentration because hype is easier to create for resourceful, but the point is, it's reality than possibility.