3 ms·

A more fundamental reason is that society is no longer interested in pushing forward at all cost. It's the arrival at an economical and technological equilibriu

A more fundamental reason is that society is no longer interested in pushing forward at all cost. It's the arrival at an economical and technological equilibrium where people are comfortable enough, along with the end of the belief in progress as an ideology, or way to salvation somewhere during the 20th century. If you look closely, a certain kind of relaxation has replaced a quest for efficiency everywhere. Is that disappointing? Is that actually bad? Do you think there might be a rude awakening? Consider: It was this scifi-fueled dream of an amazing high-tech, high-competency future that also implied machines doing the labour, and an enlightened future relieving people of all kinds of unpleasantries like boring work, therefore prevented them from attaining high competency. The fictional starship captain, navigating the galaxy and studying alien artifacts was always saving planets full of humans in desolate mental state...

PaulHoule 2y ago
My own interpretation of the business cycle is that growth cause externalities that stop growth. Sometimes you get time periods like the 1970s where efforts to control externalities themselves would cause more problems than they solved, at least some of the time. (e.g. see the trash 1974 model year of automobiles where they hadn’t figured out how to make emission controls work.) I’d credit the success of Reagan in the 1980s at managing inflation to a quiet policy of degrowth the Republicans could get away with because everybody thinks they are “pro business”. As hostile as Reagan’s rhetoric was towards environmentalism note we got new clean air and clean water acts in the 1980s but that all got put in pause under Clinton where irresponsible monetary expansion restarted.
- astrange 2y ago
  > My own interpretation of the business cycle is that growth cause externalities that stop growth. The evidence seems to be against this. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~enakamura/papers/plucking.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu/~enakamura/papers/plucking.pdf
tivert 2y ago
> along with the end of the belief in progress as an ideology, or way to salvation somewhere during the 20th century. That 20th century belief in technological progress as a "way to salvation" killed itself with smog and rivers so polluted they'd catch on fire, among other things.

PaulHoule 2y ago

My own interpretation of the business cycle is that growth cause externalities that stop growth. Sometimes you get time periods like the 1970s where efforts to control externalities themselves would cause more problems than they solved, at least some of the time. (e.g. see the trash 1974 model year of automobiles where they hadn’t figured out how to make emission controls work.) I’d credit the success of Reagan in the 1980s at managing inflation to a quiet policy of degrowth the Republicans could get away with because everybody thinks they are “pro business”. As hostile as Reagan’s rhetoric was towards environmentalism note we got new clean air and clean water acts in the 1980s but that all got put in pause under Clinton where irresponsible monetary expansion restarted.

astrange 2y ago
> My own interpretation of the business cycle is that growth cause externalities that stop growth. The evidence seems to be against this. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~enakamura/papers/plucking.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu/~enakamura/papers/plucking.pdf

tivert 2y ago

> along with the end of the belief in progress as an ideology, or way to salvation somewhere during the 20th century. That 20th century belief in technological progress as a "way to salvation" killed itself with smog and rivers so polluted they'd catch on fire, among other things.