4 ms·

> It turns out voters do not much like stagnation; the newish premier, Giorgia Meloni, rails against “Greta Thunberg’s ideology” killing jobs. What an absurd

> It turns out voters do not much like stagnation; the newish premier, Giorgia Meloni, rails against “Greta Thunberg’s ideology” killing jobs. What an absurd oversimplification. It does not even tackles the issue that most of the growth goes to very few people. There is also the idea that with redistribution of wealth most people will have more even with a smaller economy. But that are the kind of ideas that The Economist does not want in the mind of their readers. > But they too readily dismiss the obvious solution, which is to green the economy, not throttle it. The writer cannot even imagine a world where people consumes less. All the article can be summarized as: "The system works for the owner of this magazine, do not change it".

zpeti 3y ago
> most of the growth goes to very few people Do you have running water? A sewage system? Mass produced cheap clothes? Access to meat every day from an average salary? A smartphone? Access to the world information? Access to all the music ever produced for $10 a month? What you are saying is simply not true. It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone. And some win a lot, but many win even more.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Almost all of us in the West are living more comfortable (and generally longer) lives than a king from 200 years ago.
  - ownagefool 3y ago
    Mostly yes, but I imagine in some respects no: - Car, noise, light and general pollution. - Access to space and land. - Privacy & and in some respects freedom. In lots of respects our life's are more comfortable, but I don't think having an iPhone makes up for having a generation that'll never get on the housing market in the UK for example.
    - hourago 3y ago
      > In lots of respects our life's are more comfortable, but I don't think having an iPhone makes up for having a generation that'll never get on the housing market in the UK for example. You are more right that your comment. That iPhone is being used to show you more ads, track you, show you low-quality content that appeals to basic emotions... technology can make our lives better but it can also make them worse. It is neutral.
- hourago 3y ago
  > It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone. Less inequality will create opportunities for better education for millions if not billions of humans. That will improve technology in ways that just producing more stuff will not. I do not think that to tie increased consumption with better technology is true. Most of what we produce is low tech stuff like fast fashion. I will argue that producing less and having more time for leisure will also increase scientific output. So, economic growth is not the same that technological advance. And that is one of the points of the "lefty Europeans": economy measurements are not tied to human advancement and well being but just money.
  - mijamo 3y ago
    Economic growth is also not linked to resources use. You can have growth while using less resources, or shrink the economy while using less. This is why the whole movement has always felt weird to me. You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon.
    - hourago 3y ago
      > You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon. So, at least we agree that GDP is a bad measure and we need to come up with something better that takes into account more things that just amount of money.
jasmer 3y ago
Better redistribution would last a very short while to provide 'more growth' and ironically that is the big canard. 'Equitable' distribution is not the objective - what we want is 'distribution that creates the most growth' because by far and away, the later is what will make the most, the wealthiest. It's probably not optimal for example for everyone to have the same amount of assets. Most assets are not unproductive, and the people managing them are 'doing stuff', Musk, though says some ridiculous things in Twitter, is still making Tesla and SpaceX. It's better if we give him some money leaway. Second, I can absolutely assure you that all people want growth at least for the coming very long while. There is an infinite demand for healthcare services, especially as we age, we are in a perennial system of rationing and 'growth' will help there. We all want to travel more, to have more leisure, and frankly nobody enjoys cleaning up after themselves. We are nowhere near an age whereupon regular folk want to consume less. In fact, the tone of your comment suggests that you're caught up in the mythology of 'less growth' as though that would mean 'less plastic in the ocean' or something like that.

zpeti 3y ago

> most of the growth goes to very few people Do you have running water? A sewage system? Mass produced cheap clothes? Access to meat every day from an average salary? A smartphone? Access to the world information? Access to all the music ever produced for $10 a month? What you are saying is simply not true. It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone. And some win a lot, but many win even more.

sokoloff 3y ago
Almost all of us in the West are living more comfortable (and generally longer) lives than a king from 200 years ago.
- ownagefool 3y ago
  Mostly yes, but I imagine in some respects no: - Car, noise, light and general pollution. - Access to space and land. - Privacy & and in some respects freedom. In lots of respects our life's are more comfortable, but I don't think having an iPhone makes up for having a generation that'll never get on the housing market in the UK for example.
  - hourago 3y ago
    > In lots of respects our life's are more comfortable, but I don't think having an iPhone makes up for having a generation that'll never get on the housing market in the UK for example. You are more right that your comment. That iPhone is being used to show you more ads, track you, show you low-quality content that appeals to basic emotions... technology can make our lives better but it can also make them worse. It is neutral.
hourago 3y ago
> It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone. Less inequality will create opportunities for better education for millions if not billions of humans. That will improve technology in ways that just producing more stuff will not. I do not think that to tie increased consumption with better technology is true. Most of what we produce is low tech stuff like fast fashion. I will argue that producing less and having more time for leisure will also increase scientific output. So, economic growth is not the same that technological advance. And that is one of the points of the "lefty Europeans": economy measurements are not tied to human advancement and well being but just money.
- mijamo 3y ago
  Economic growth is also not linked to resources use. You can have growth while using less resources, or shrink the economy while using less. This is why the whole movement has always felt weird to me. You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon.
  - hourago 3y ago
    > You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon. So, at least we agree that GDP is a bad measure and we need to come up with something better that takes into account more things that just amount of money.

jasmer 3y ago

Better redistribution would last a very short while to provide 'more growth' and ironically that is the big canard. 'Equitable' distribution is not the objective - what we want is 'distribution that creates the most growth' because by far and away, the later is what will make the most, the wealthiest. It's probably not optimal for example for everyone to have the same amount of assets. Most assets are not unproductive, and the people managing them are 'doing stuff', Musk, though says some ridiculous things in Twitter, is still making Tesla and SpaceX. It's better if we give him some money leaway. Second, I can absolutely assure you that all people want growth at least for the coming very long while. There is an infinite demand for healthcare services, especially as we age, we are in a perennial system of rationing and 'growth' will help there. We all want to travel more, to have more leisure, and frankly nobody enjoys cleaning up after themselves. We are nowhere near an age whereupon regular folk want to consume less. In fact, the tone of your comment suggests that you're caught up in the mythology of 'less growth' as though that would mean 'less plastic in the ocean' or something like that.