5 ms·

There are some people who claim there could be no democracy without growth, because without new economic opportunities, the only way to get ahead in life, is by

There are some people who claim there could be no democracy without growth, because without new economic opportunities, the only way to get ahead in life, is by taking from others, which leads to violence and tyranny. I find it a compelling argument. Besides, I cannot imagine a world without growth that is not a regressive dystopian society. What would even be the point of life in such a world?

timeon 3y ago
This just speaks about your morals.
hotpotamus 3y ago
If cancer could be anthropomorphized, you'd have to imagine this is what it would sound like. The point of life in such a world would be the same as in any other; there would still be none, and people would still overlay on that whatever they wanted; the same as they do now.
noiv 3y ago
growth and economic opportunities have only some overlap...
moritzwarhier 3y ago
It is very sad that people believe in this. Why is growth needed to prevent a regressive dystopian society? The weird thing is, material needs of humans don't have to rise exponentially. And I don't think that people in rich countries today are exponentially happier than say 50 years ago, because of their increased material consumption. Neither do I think that it should be needed to allow limitless accumulation of wealth... But well, that all might sound like radical ideas already, for whatever reason. So merry Christmas, fellow HNers, may you enjoy growth and prosperity
- Geisterde 3y ago
  >It is very sad that people believe in this. Why is growth needed to prevent a regressive dystopian society? How are we deciding what gets made and for whom? Does democracy get to decide if you deserve a new car? Does a bureaucracy get to decide? Lets cover an economic concept quickly, given options, people will trend towards rational self interest. If two people agree to a deal voluntarily, they must each believe that trade increases their subjective well being. In a market system, people can aquire goods and services in proportion to the value they create for others. It isnt decided from way on high, it is the product of a complex social system and the choices we make in it. Since we can assume that people will trend towards their rational self interest, the economy will grow simply as a byproduct of the individuals involved having their needs met. To have degrowth, I have to question what measures are required to so disrupt the natural order of markets. Now, there are ways, you could use the law to restrict peoples options both legally and economically, but that is dystopian and regressive. Any governing body given the power to decide what goods and services others are entitled to, are violating those individuals human rights to things like free association and autonomy, and are guarenteed to be captured by entrenched interests. If you just think people are too wasteful and careless, I agree, but I think you need to dig a bit deeper at why people are acting this way. You cant effectively save dollars for the future, and the stock market is a casino; I think people waste because the concept of saving has been turned into a charade. I'll lose it gambling on an auto industry that looks ready for bankruptcy, or lose it when my short position gets blown out by a bailout, and itll be worthless when I need it if its in the bank, so ill buy a new $300 couch and plan to replace it in a couple years.
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    > To have degrowth, I have to question what measures are required to so disrupt the natural order of markets. Now, there are ways, you could use the law to restrict peoples options both legally and economically, but that is dystopian and regressive. Any governing body given the power to decide what goods and services others are entitled to, are violating those individuals human rights to things like free association and autonomy Who owns natural resources? Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? Also: > I think people waste because the concept of saving has been turned into a charade. I'll lose it gambling on an auto industry that looks ready for bankruptcy, or lose it when my short position gets blown out by a bailout, and itll be worthless when I need it if its in the bank, so ill buy a new $300 couch and plan to replace it in a couple years. This doesn't sound as if you believe in a non-dystopian free market. > Does democracy get to decide if you deserve a new car? In a way, yes! What use is a car without car infrastructure? And also, apart from the indirect subsidies that make sure that we make more cars than anybody needs, and to perpetuate a need for more cars, there are direct subsidies to the industry, for buyers and makers of cars alike. Bad example. Car traffic is much more heavily subsidized than public transport, especially when you start to factor in the beloved "externalities". > In a market system, people can aquire goods and services in proportion to the value they create for others. It isnt decided from way on high, it is the product of a complex social system and the choices we make in it Who decides if you are allowed to make goods and services by exploiting natural resources and polluting the environment? Honestly, "market failure" and "externalities" are well-known concepts to economists. We just collectively decide to close our eyes.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      >Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them. >Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? No, those people should be taken to court or private arbitration for violating whoevers property or rights were violated. If I have land I dont want it poisoned because there is an opportunity cost; people dont poison their own land, they poison others if they can get away with it, which is why most environmental catastrophes (flint, derailed chemical trains, pipeline bombings, nuclear war) occur as a result of government action, they have immense protection from legal accountability. >This doesn't sound as if you believe in a non-dystopian free market. What makes you say that? The free market exists anywhere there isnt something to stop it. If someone needs a cheap couch, I can at once see that 2 things are possible simultaneously, that the cheap couch is their best available option and should be available, and that their buying decisions might have been different if they had a better vehicle for saving their wealth. The non-dystopian future is the one where the cheap couch is available, but people also have a reasonable ability to save for something nicer that might last longer. Where the free market isnt, is in sanctions, central banking, bailouts, taxation, and government regulation, hopefully that clarifies things. >In a way, yes! What use is a car without car infrastructure?... There were cars and roads before there were taxes and subsidies to support them, if there is a market demand for cars and infastructure then it will be built. Simple equation, will I pay for a car and roads, call it an investment, so that I can get to work, and make even more money? Yes, that would be a good way to spend the money I have. See, you can hold a vote and remove those from public spending, but I still have an incentive to pay for these items, in fact id prefer it that way. >Who decides if you are allowed to make goods and services by exploiting natural resources and polluting the environment? Yes, great question, in fact the same one I framed to you. Are you going to vote to stop me from using my own legally and freely traded property to produce something? What if we vote to take your stuff, not everybodies, just yours. What if we vote that you are inconvenient to the rest of us? I imagine that will not end well for minority populations, is there anything we cant do if we vote for it? >Honestly, "market failure" and "externalities" are well-known concepts to economists. Could you unpack the term marlet failure? I dont think you quite understand what that term means; setting a price floor for lizard tails with the intention of exterminating them from your city would (has) lead to a market failure, there would (are) be more lizards than ever as breeders harvest their tales, and government wearhouses would (did) overflow with useless lizard tails.
- sgu999 3y ago
  [flagged]
layer8 3y ago
You can still have personal growth, and scientific advancements. You can have a fulfilling life and fulfilling work without economic growth.
ethanbond 3y ago
Japan is an empirical disproof of that claim, isn’t it?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Japan is a pristine example of that claim, the lack of growth and the inflation induced in a vein attempt to manufacture growth has been a sad comedy of national suicide. Japan remaining politically cohesive at this time will be a footnote in the history books in the chapter right before "Yield curve control collapses", and the chapter will read "Interest payments on public sector debts increased as investor sentiment collapsed and the japanese government had to introduce crippling austerity measures to meet its obligations". We have already seen the central bank there increase its interest rate targets because no one will buy the lower interest rate bonds. They are trapped under >250% debt to gdp, how do you think that gets paid off?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    But that’s not what’s predicted by the proposed model. That’s just vanilla “why growth is useful,” not “without growth your democracy will fail because of zero sum competition.”
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      I think the original comment can be summarized by this quote "without new economic opportunities, the only way to get ahead in life, is by taking from others, which leads to violence and tyranny". To which you responded that japan is empirical evidence against that. To which I replied it is a good example to the contrary. Now you are saying 2 things 1. thats not the model 2. I have only explained why growth is useful, not why its necessary. To 1, I agree, I totally reject this model, this is a curve fitting excercise, not real science and not real economics. To 2, in a sense you are correct. There is something waiting under the surface to strike any country of today should they decide degrowth is the policy, should they not decide to print it off for another day. See, all the dollars in the economy, the dollars in your wallet, and in your bank account, were created through the issuance of debt, such as home loans and government debt. Those debts have interest rates, meaning for every dollar in existence there is a multiple owed to the great abyss of currency being taken out of circulation when those debts are paid. If our monetary system doesnt continually increase the amount of debt in the system, eventually all the dollars would seemingly vanish from the system and we would still have debt that there were never enough dollars to pay for. There is the death of all your modern monies should degrowth be the objective, democracy or otherwise. Now, the monetary system doesnt need to be that way, money could be a commodity that doesnt come with these strings attached. You might even find that the worlds largest polluters cease their operations immediately if that were ever to come true, I dont think the Pentagon would have the same incentive to invade oil rich middle eastern countries if they didnt have their precious petrodollar to defend. Could a democracy work, with degrowth, and without the pitfalls caused by implimenting the credit theory of money? Sure, just start killing everyone, because for the first time in generations people would have a money that routes around attempts to inhibit growth, what else can you do at that point?
jay80 3y ago
Society - with brief exceptions - lived with almost no growth for most of its existence. Since around the 1800s, the utilization of fossil fuels and industrialization, we have been living in such an exception. Eventually, things will revert back to the mean. In the meantime, the higher our society rises and the more it overconsumes the harder the adjustment will be. https://www.darrinqualman.com/2000-years-of-economic-growth/ https://www.darrinqualman.com/2000-years-of-economic-growth/
- justanotherjoe 3y ago
  But our current world hinges on future growth. You must rewind the clock pretty far back to see what kind of society it could be, even with today's tech.
- api 3y ago
  Life has undergone multiple large scale evolutionary shifts. Did it revert to the mean? Were multicellularity, photosynthesis, or sexual reproduction fads or blips? Obviously fossil fuel use must be a blip, but non-fossil sources have achieved exponential takeoff. This could be a new normal, with humans possibly being joined by synthetic AI lifeforms soon. This would represent a giant shift toward neural cognitive intelligent life as a dominant process in the ecosystem, a change similar in magnitude to the birth of eukaryotes or the Cambrian explosion. Or it could all blow up and fail. I do not have a time machine or clairvoyance. I’m just pointing out that one cannot make definite statements about what complex evolving systems will do, and many very unprecedented weird things have already happened in the history of life.

timeon 3y ago

This just speaks about your morals.

hotpotamus 3y ago

If cancer could be anthropomorphized, you'd have to imagine this is what it would sound like. The point of life in such a world would be the same as in any other; there would still be none, and people would still overlay on that whatever they wanted; the same as they do now.

noiv 3y ago

growth and economic opportunities have only some overlap...

moritzwarhier 3y ago

It is very sad that people believe in this. Why is growth needed to prevent a regressive dystopian society? The weird thing is, material needs of humans don't have to rise exponentially. And I don't think that people in rich countries today are exponentially happier than say 50 years ago, because of their increased material consumption. Neither do I think that it should be needed to allow limitless accumulation of wealth... But well, that all might sound like radical ideas already, for whatever reason. So merry Christmas, fellow HNers, may you enjoy growth and prosperity

Geisterde 3y ago
>It is very sad that people believe in this. Why is growth needed to prevent a regressive dystopian society? How are we deciding what gets made and for whom? Does democracy get to decide if you deserve a new car? Does a bureaucracy get to decide? Lets cover an economic concept quickly, given options, people will trend towards rational self interest. If two people agree to a deal voluntarily, they must each believe that trade increases their subjective well being. In a market system, people can aquire goods and services in proportion to the value they create for others. It isnt decided from way on high, it is the product of a complex social system and the choices we make in it. Since we can assume that people will trend towards their rational self interest, the economy will grow simply as a byproduct of the individuals involved having their needs met. To have degrowth, I have to question what measures are required to so disrupt the natural order of markets. Now, there are ways, you could use the law to restrict peoples options both legally and economically, but that is dystopian and regressive. Any governing body given the power to decide what goods and services others are entitled to, are violating those individuals human rights to things like free association and autonomy, and are guarenteed to be captured by entrenched interests. If you just think people are too wasteful and careless, I agree, but I think you need to dig a bit deeper at why people are acting this way. You cant effectively save dollars for the future, and the stock market is a casino; I think people waste because the concept of saving has been turned into a charade. I'll lose it gambling on an auto industry that looks ready for bankruptcy, or lose it when my short position gets blown out by a bailout, and itll be worthless when I need it if its in the bank, so ill buy a new $300 couch and plan to replace it in a couple years.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  > To have degrowth, I have to question what measures are required to so disrupt the natural order of markets. Now, there are ways, you could use the law to restrict peoples options both legally and economically, but that is dystopian and regressive. Any governing body given the power to decide what goods and services others are entitled to, are violating those individuals human rights to things like free association and autonomy Who owns natural resources? Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? Also: > I think people waste because the concept of saving has been turned into a charade. I'll lose it gambling on an auto industry that looks ready for bankruptcy, or lose it when my short position gets blown out by a bailout, and itll be worthless when I need it if its in the bank, so ill buy a new $300 couch and plan to replace it in a couple years. This doesn't sound as if you believe in a non-dystopian free market. > Does democracy get to decide if you deserve a new car? In a way, yes! What use is a car without car infrastructure? And also, apart from the indirect subsidies that make sure that we make more cars than anybody needs, and to perpetuate a need for more cars, there are direct subsidies to the industry, for buyers and makers of cars alike. Bad example. Car traffic is much more heavily subsidized than public transport, especially when you start to factor in the beloved "externalities". > In a market system, people can aquire goods and services in proportion to the value they create for others. It isnt decided from way on high, it is the product of a complex social system and the choices we make in it Who decides if you are allowed to make goods and services by exploiting natural resources and polluting the environment? Honestly, "market failure" and "externalities" are well-known concepts to economists. We just collectively decide to close our eyes.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    >Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them. >Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? No, those people should be taken to court or private arbitration for violating whoevers property or rights were violated. If I have land I dont want it poisoned because there is an opportunity cost; people dont poison their own land, they poison others if they can get away with it, which is why most environmental catastrophes (flint, derailed chemical trains, pipeline bombings, nuclear war) occur as a result of government action, they have immense protection from legal accountability. >This doesn't sound as if you believe in a non-dystopian free market. What makes you say that? The free market exists anywhere there isnt something to stop it. If someone needs a cheap couch, I can at once see that 2 things are possible simultaneously, that the cheap couch is their best available option and should be available, and that their buying decisions might have been different if they had a better vehicle for saving their wealth. The non-dystopian future is the one where the cheap couch is available, but people also have a reasonable ability to save for something nicer that might last longer. Where the free market isnt, is in sanctions, central banking, bailouts, taxation, and government regulation, hopefully that clarifies things. >In a way, yes! What use is a car without car infrastructure?... There were cars and roads before there were taxes and subsidies to support them, if there is a market demand for cars and infastructure then it will be built. Simple equation, will I pay for a car and roads, call it an investment, so that I can get to work, and make even more money? Yes, that would be a good way to spend the money I have. See, you can hold a vote and remove those from public spending, but I still have an incentive to pay for these items, in fact id prefer it that way. >Who decides if you are allowed to make goods and services by exploiting natural resources and polluting the environment? Yes, great question, in fact the same one I framed to you. Are you going to vote to stop me from using my own legally and freely traded property to produce something? What if we vote to take your stuff, not everybodies, just yours. What if we vote that you are inconvenient to the rest of us? I imagine that will not end well for minority populations, is there anything we cant do if we vote for it? >Honestly, "market failure" and "externalities" are well-known concepts to economists. Could you unpack the term marlet failure? I dont think you quite understand what that term means; setting a price floor for lizard tails with the intention of exterminating them from your city would (has) lead to a market failure, there would (are) be more lizards than ever as breeders harvest their tales, and government wearhouses would (did) overflow with useless lizard tails.
sgu999 3y ago
[flagged]

layer8 3y ago

You can still have personal growth, and scientific advancements. You can have a fulfilling life and fulfilling work without economic growth.

ethanbond 3y ago

Japan is an empirical disproof of that claim, isn’t it?

Geisterde 3y ago
Japan is a pristine example of that claim, the lack of growth and the inflation induced in a vein attempt to manufacture growth has been a sad comedy of national suicide. Japan remaining politically cohesive at this time will be a footnote in the history books in the chapter right before "Yield curve control collapses", and the chapter will read "Interest payments on public sector debts increased as investor sentiment collapsed and the japanese government had to introduce crippling austerity measures to meet its obligations". We have already seen the central bank there increase its interest rate targets because no one will buy the lower interest rate bonds. They are trapped under >250% debt to gdp, how do you think that gets paid off?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  But that’s not what’s predicted by the proposed model. That’s just vanilla “why growth is useful,” not “without growth your democracy will fail because of zero sum competition.”
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    I think the original comment can be summarized by this quote "without new economic opportunities, the only way to get ahead in life, is by taking from others, which leads to violence and tyranny". To which you responded that japan is empirical evidence against that. To which I replied it is a good example to the contrary. Now you are saying 2 things 1. thats not the model 2. I have only explained why growth is useful, not why its necessary. To 1, I agree, I totally reject this model, this is a curve fitting excercise, not real science and not real economics. To 2, in a sense you are correct. There is something waiting under the surface to strike any country of today should they decide degrowth is the policy, should they not decide to print it off for another day. See, all the dollars in the economy, the dollars in your wallet, and in your bank account, were created through the issuance of debt, such as home loans and government debt. Those debts have interest rates, meaning for every dollar in existence there is a multiple owed to the great abyss of currency being taken out of circulation when those debts are paid. If our monetary system doesnt continually increase the amount of debt in the system, eventually all the dollars would seemingly vanish from the system and we would still have debt that there were never enough dollars to pay for. There is the death of all your modern monies should degrowth be the objective, democracy or otherwise. Now, the monetary system doesnt need to be that way, money could be a commodity that doesnt come with these strings attached. You might even find that the worlds largest polluters cease their operations immediately if that were ever to come true, I dont think the Pentagon would have the same incentive to invade oil rich middle eastern countries if they didnt have their precious petrodollar to defend. Could a democracy work, with degrowth, and without the pitfalls caused by implimenting the credit theory of money? Sure, just start killing everyone, because for the first time in generations people would have a money that routes around attempts to inhibit growth, what else can you do at that point?

jay80 3y ago

Society - with brief exceptions - lived with almost no growth for most of its existence. Since around the 1800s, the utilization of fossil fuels and industrialization, we have been living in such an exception. Eventually, things will revert back to the mean. In the meantime, the higher our society rises and the more it overconsumes the harder the adjustment will be. https://www.darrinqualman.com/2000-years-of-economic-growth/ https://www.darrinqualman.com/2000-years-of-economic-growth/

justanotherjoe 3y ago
But our current world hinges on future growth. You must rewind the clock pretty far back to see what kind of society it could be, even with today's tech.
api 3y ago
Life has undergone multiple large scale evolutionary shifts. Did it revert to the mean? Were multicellularity, photosynthesis, or sexual reproduction fads or blips? Obviously fossil fuel use must be a blip, but non-fossil sources have achieved exponential takeoff. This could be a new normal, with humans possibly being joined by synthetic AI lifeforms soon. This would represent a giant shift toward neural cognitive intelligent life as a dominant process in the ecosystem, a change similar in magnitude to the birth of eukaryotes or the Cambrian explosion. Or it could all blow up and fail. I do not have a time machine or clairvoyance. I’m just pointing out that one cannot make definite statements about what complex evolving systems will do, and many very unprecedented weird things have already happened in the history of life.