2 ms·

The neoliberal economic model requires exponential growth in consumption and these economists are the ones who help politicians draft their policies and budgets

The neoliberal economic model requires exponential growth in consumption and these economists are the ones who help politicians draft their policies and budgets. Degrowth (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/13/economy/degrowth-climate-cop27/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/13/economy/degrowth-climate-cop2...) seems like the only real solution to me but try explaining to people that they'll have to consume less and you'll realize why the most likely outcome is catastrophic collapse. I've talked to people about plastic pollution and how most synthetic chemicals/pollutants are now part of the water cycle. The usual response is that it is depressing to think about and the conversation then changes to some inane news about the latest consumer gadget or toy. Most politicians are not interested in challenging their constituents and their consumption habits because that's not something that gets anyone elected into a political office. Presumably good leaders are supposed to think long term but most politicians are not good leaders and are happy to support policies that basically guarantee a catastrophic outcome.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
It's tiring to see the blame pinned on the "neoliberal economic model" when, really, this has always been the case even among other species. This is life in the biological sense. Now, regarding "degrowth", the key is population degrowth, which is challenging. People do not have to be worse off, they even can and should be better off than we are now at global scale, if there are fewer of us on the planet.
- haltist 3y ago
  Population growth is necessary for exponential consumption, i.e. the more people there are the greater the GDP of the country because all economic metrics measured by neoliberal economists are linearly correlated with population size. In fact, neoliberal economics stops working if the global population is not increasing exponentially. Most people don't know enough about what economists do to call them on a basic contradiction which is obvious to anyone who understands that the biomass of earth is finite. Exponential growth on a finite planet is both logically and physically impossible. They also do not account for pollution from consumption for which the technical term is "negative externality". In any case, there are plenty of critiques and you can find the relevant articles on the web. I'm not the first to notice the inconsistencies in neoliberal economics and their ignorance of basic physical principles. Claude.ai for posterity: I have a few thoughts on your perspective: - Population growth is not always necessary or sufficient for economic growth. Technology, efficiency, productivity, institutions etc. also play key roles. - GDP growth does correlate with population growth, but the relationship is not always linear. Economics is complex. - Many economists do account for finite resources, negative externalities, sustainability issues, etc. Not all economists subscribe to simplistic neoliberal views. - However, you're right that perpetual exponential growth is likely impossible on a finite planet. More nuanced economic models are needed. - Reasonable people can disagree on how best to balance economic growth, environmental sustainability, and human development. There are no easy answers. - Critiquing simplifications like "more people always means more GDP" is fair. But be careful not to overgeneralize on complex topics where experts disagree. - Multi-disciplinary approaches incorporating economics, science, and ethics are important. Problems like climate change require nuance, not polarized narratives. In summary, you raise valid concerns, but be cautious about blanket critiques. There is more depth and diversity of thought in economics than often portrayed. Engaging charitably across disciplines helps find solutions.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

It's tiring to see the blame pinned on the "neoliberal economic model" when, really, this has always been the case even among other species. This is life in the biological sense. Now, regarding "degrowth", the key is population degrowth, which is challenging. People do not have to be worse off, they even can and should be better off than we are now at global scale, if there are fewer of us on the planet.

haltist 3y ago
Population growth is necessary for exponential consumption, i.e. the more people there are the greater the GDP of the country because all economic metrics measured by neoliberal economists are linearly correlated with population size. In fact, neoliberal economics stops working if the global population is not increasing exponentially. Most people don't know enough about what economists do to call them on a basic contradiction which is obvious to anyone who understands that the biomass of earth is finite. Exponential growth on a finite planet is both logically and physically impossible. They also do not account for pollution from consumption for which the technical term is "negative externality". In any case, there are plenty of critiques and you can find the relevant articles on the web. I'm not the first to notice the inconsistencies in neoliberal economics and their ignorance of basic physical principles. Claude.ai for posterity: I have a few thoughts on your perspective: - Population growth is not always necessary or sufficient for economic growth. Technology, efficiency, productivity, institutions etc. also play key roles. - GDP growth does correlate with population growth, but the relationship is not always linear. Economics is complex. - Many economists do account for finite resources, negative externalities, sustainability issues, etc. Not all economists subscribe to simplistic neoliberal views. - However, you're right that perpetual exponential growth is likely impossible on a finite planet. More nuanced economic models are needed. - Reasonable people can disagree on how best to balance economic growth, environmental sustainability, and human development. There are no easy answers. - Critiquing simplifications like "more people always means more GDP" is fair. But be careful not to overgeneralize on complex topics where experts disagree. - Multi-disciplinary approaches incorporating economics, science, and ethics are important. Problems like climate change require nuance, not polarized narratives. In summary, you raise valid concerns, but be cautious about blanket critiques. There is more depth and diversity of thought in economics than often portrayed. Engaging charitably across disciplines helps find solutions.