4 ms·

Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Are we really expecting not only everlasting growth but exponential growth until the end of times

Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Are we really expecting not only everlasting growth but exponential growth until the end of times?! Come on! Even the 1.27% growth of the groth seems unsustainable, we should be happy about it it not seeking the faults in not achieving somthing unattainable.

defrost 4y ago
I'm looking forward to a metric that measures and rewards increasing ability to live better lives within our means ...
- jlawson 4y ago
  Most measured economic growth is like this - getting more from less.. For example, a process that allows producing 2x more electricity per unit of fuel would increase the productivity of the generator station, and be counted as economic growth. Economic growth also measures increased consumption of natural resources, so it's a mixed measurement admittedly.
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    Except that gdp has no conception of the impact of improved productivity. For example, cars are an incredibly inefficient and expensive transportation model from a capX and operating cost perspective. Switching to a public transit model would increase quality of life, but would shrink the gdp, because the operating costs for public transit are orders of magnitude less than car-oriented transit. So even though public transit would improve efficiency, the 1st order effect would be to reduce gdp.
millimeterman 4y ago
Do you think humans have run out of things to invent and improve? Are standards of living good enough that we can be content to stop here? Why exactly should we expect (let alone hope) that growth will stop?
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  If you want to improve standards of living for more people with respect to the socioeconomic realities of each person, you’re going to end up with an outgoing cash flow towards some welfate policy or humanitarian cause that funds people’s basic needs and healthcare, which won’t count as “growth” in the capitalist sense, which is the sense being used here.
  - tdehnel 4y ago
    You could find a way to employ those people. Then you’d get growth in both ways.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    Wealth transfer isn’t going to improve anyone’s well being. Making a better lifestyle more affordable by increasing productivity will though.
    - millimeterman 4y ago
      While I agree that increasing productivity is the prime directive when it comes to improving standards of living, dismissing the benefits of wealth transfer is naive. Direct wealth transfer is a useful tool for mitigating market failures like labor market monopsony and the various negative externalities of excessive inequality. When used correctly, it does in fact improve economic efficiency and societal well-being.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    Living standards have been improved far more effectively by bringing more people into jobs with higher productivity, driven by capitalist systems. Look at the tens or hundreds of millions of people brought out of abject poverty in China and India and other countries by adopting free market economic principles.
  - millimeterman 4y ago
    > you’re going to end up with an outgoing cash flow towards some welfate policy or humanitarian cause that funds people’s basic needs and healthcare, which won’t count as “growth” in the capitalist sense Properly executed redistributive policy absolutely increases growth in the "capitalist sense", whatever that means. That's kind of the whole point.
towaway15463 4y ago
Why should there be a limit on human productivity? After all it means we are getting more efficient at the things we are doing, doing more with less, is that not a laudable goal? Any time we have approached a limit we have found a way to cheat it, that’s cause for celebration.
unity1001 4y ago
> Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Capitalism increasingly consolidates the economy in the hands of the majority capital owners that control most of the economy. For that reason, in order to have a society that at least has a semblance of being a functioning one, there must be growth to provide some wealth/income to the majority. When a capitalist economy is no longer able to grow exponentially, it starts eating itself from inside.
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Occam's razor suggests capitalists must make more money because their mega yachts and private jets are not enough.

defrost 4y ago

I'm looking forward to a metric that measures and rewards increasing ability to live better lives within our means ...

jlawson 4y ago
Most measured economic growth is like this - getting more from less.. For example, a process that allows producing 2x more electricity per unit of fuel would increase the productivity of the generator station, and be counted as economic growth. Economic growth also measures increased consumption of natural resources, so it's a mixed measurement admittedly.
- danny_codes 4y ago
  Except that gdp has no conception of the impact of improved productivity. For example, cars are an incredibly inefficient and expensive transportation model from a capX and operating cost perspective. Switching to a public transit model would increase quality of life, but would shrink the gdp, because the operating costs for public transit are orders of magnitude less than car-oriented transit. So even though public transit would improve efficiency, the 1st order effect would be to reduce gdp.

millimeterman 4y ago

Do you think humans have run out of things to invent and improve? Are standards of living good enough that we can be content to stop here? Why exactly should we expect (let alone hope) that growth will stop?

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
If you want to improve standards of living for more people with respect to the socioeconomic realities of each person, you’re going to end up with an outgoing cash flow towards some welfate policy or humanitarian cause that funds people’s basic needs and healthcare, which won’t count as “growth” in the capitalist sense, which is the sense being used here.
- tdehnel 4y ago
  You could find a way to employ those people. Then you’d get growth in both ways.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  Wealth transfer isn’t going to improve anyone’s well being. Making a better lifestyle more affordable by increasing productivity will though.
  - millimeterman 4y ago
    While I agree that increasing productivity is the prime directive when it comes to improving standards of living, dismissing the benefits of wealth transfer is naive. Direct wealth transfer is a useful tool for mitigating market failures like labor market monopsony and the various negative externalities of excessive inequality. When used correctly, it does in fact improve economic efficiency and societal well-being.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Living standards have been improved far more effectively by bringing more people into jobs with higher productivity, driven by capitalist systems. Look at the tens or hundreds of millions of people brought out of abject poverty in China and India and other countries by adopting free market economic principles.
- millimeterman 4y ago
  > you’re going to end up with an outgoing cash flow towards some welfate policy or humanitarian cause that funds people’s basic needs and healthcare, which won’t count as “growth” in the capitalist sense Properly executed redistributive policy absolutely increases growth in the "capitalist sense", whatever that means. That's kind of the whole point.

towaway15463 4y ago

Why should there be a limit on human productivity? After all it means we are getting more efficient at the things we are doing, doing more with less, is that not a laudable goal? Any time we have approached a limit we have found a way to cheat it, that’s cause for celebration.

unity1001 4y ago

> Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Capitalism increasingly consolidates the economy in the hands of the majority capital owners that control most of the economy. For that reason, in order to have a society that at least has a semblance of being a functioning one, there must be growth to provide some wealth/income to the majority. When a capitalist economy is no longer able to grow exponentially, it starts eating itself from inside.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

> Slower growth, why is that a problem? That is still a growth. Occam's razor suggests capitalists must make more money because their mega yachts and private jets are not enough.