4 ms·
Any time someone advocates for massive redistribution, as degrowth does, ask to whom they propose to give that power of appropriation, and why they trust them t
by vonnik 3y ago
Any time someone advocates for massive redistribution, as degrowth does, ask to whom they propose to give that power of appropriation, and why they trust them to use it wisely.
What differentiates redistributive degrowth from certain forms of socialism? Did those forms of socialism create just societies or enact massive violence against humans and nature?
If one or more countries opt out of redistributive degrowth in favor of other economic models, how likely are they to create more desirable local living conditions than the degrowthers, destabilizing the degrowth regime just as visions of capitalism destabilized the USSR?
- _delirium 3y agoAs I read it, the point of the linked article is not to argue that a specific approach will work, but more to argue about what effects hypothetical policies would have, if successfully enacted, which is a core concern of economics. The argument here asks: if we did X, would Y follow? There appears to be a debate among economists, and this article is making one argument in that debate (which you can agree with or disagree with). But that debate is independent of whether is it possible in practice to do X in the first place.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago> whom they propose to give that power of appropriation, and why they trust them to use it wisely. Existing state structures, through taxes/subsidies/government expenditure/laws/regulations, already redistribute wealth from some socioeconomic classes to others. These structures are to certain extent decided by elected officials and somewhat by other big players (eg. bank regulations on overdrafting). Degrowthers are asking that society elect officials who make the economic changes they want, which they are legally empowered to do. Since, the overall system is not being changed, I am not quite sure what your concern is. > Did those forms of socialism create just societies or enact massive violence against humans and nature? Please understand the difference between democractic socialism and Marxism (and its failed implementations in the USSR). Various forms of democratic socialism are practiced across Europe and Canada and they are not particularly known for massive violence against their own citizens.
- RandomLensman 3y agoEuropean democratic socialism very much has a growth focus, very unclear what a degrowth variant would look like.
- hcks 3y agoWhat do you mean? Europe has been pretty much degrowing since 2008
- RandomLensman 3y agoNot on purpose...
- yorwba 3y agoEU GDP has grown by 15.3% from 2008 to 2022 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?locations=EU&start=2008 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?location... Is that really what degrowth looks like?
- RandomLensman 3y agoGetting close to at about 1% per year.
- semi-extrinsic 3y agoIt's less that European democratic socialism has a growth focus, and more that the entire global financial system is built on the fundamental assumption of continuous growth. In the presence of degrowth, what would a reasonable inflation target be for the central bank? What should the interest rate be? Should the government issue more debt? Under what circumstances should individuals or companies be eligible for incurring debt? AFAIK, all of these questions don't have good answers so far, whether you are a capitalistic or a socialistic nation.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
- baq 3y agoThe problem with economic contraction is that it is inevitable. You won’t hear this from economists, but ask any physicist about exponential growth. The question is what terms will the contraction happen on. It can be engineered, or it can be a surprise. I’m convinced most engineered scenarios are overall more desirable than an unexpected collapse. There’s one scenario where contraction doesn’t have to happen - that’s where exponential growth stops. Maybe stagflation is the best outcome.
- peepeepoopoo41 3y ago> The problem with economic contraction is that it is inevitable. You won’t hear this from economists, but ask any physicist about exponential growth. Could you please provide some suggested reading about how we've exhausted the entire universe's resources? I seem to be out of the loop.
- ramblenode 3y agoHere is one place to start: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... > Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.
- peepeepoopoo41 3y agoCan you please cite some additional sources that planet earth is also the maximum extent of the observable universe?
- msm_ 3y agoIs there any reason why (in theory) we can't release heat to space in some other way? I can think of many (imaginary) ways of releasing space, for example shooting superheated materials to space, maybe some planet-scale laser-powered heat pump or radiator [1]. I realise such solutions (in general, please don't focus on my examples) are not currently possible and very far from what we can do, but there's no physical reasons we can't invent them during the next 300 years, right?