4 ms·

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

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.

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.