4 ms·

If there were not negative externalities being subsidized, i.e. perversely encouraged, then growth would always be good. The problem with economic growth into

If there were not negative externalities being subsidized, i.e. perversely encouraged, then growth would always be good. The problem with economic growth into negative sum gold mines, is not only the immediate and cumulative damage so far, but that all that damage is what funds and incentivizes existing and new actors to compound the damage. Compound. Compound. That doesn't stop easily. Whether that is fossil fuel, plastic or surveillance/manipulation media. (None of which I have an ideological issue with, if they are taxed or pay for the harm they do, each market would quickly find N new and clever ways to substitute, avoid or mitigate the damage.) Once large corporations start making money where there is a negative sum conflict of interest, growth by definition is very very bad. But the problem isn't "growth".

eru 1y ago
> If there were not negative externalities being subsidized, i.e. perversely encouraged, then growth would always be good. That's a good start, but it's a bit more complicated. Reasonable people can disagree what counts as a positive vs negative externality. Eg if you like to be warm, perhaps you see global warming as positive externality. (Really silly example, but you can come up with better ones.) Also reasonable people can disagree about discounting rates. If current interest rates are very high, it can be economically rational to cut down a forest completely to get lots of lumber now, but severely damage long running production. If discounting rates are very low, then you'd leave the forest standing. If you internalise externalities, the problem becomes less extreme, but sufficiently large differences in discounting rates will still make it surface. > Once large corporations start making money where there is a negative sum conflict of interest, growth by definition very very bad. Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet.
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  > Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Having been in consulting for a long time, for many of these companies, let’s just say reasonable people can disagree with this.
  - eru 1y ago
    I'm not saying that large multinationals are better than you think. I'm saying that the other actors (small companies, governments, private individuals, NGOs, etc) ain't any better, and many of them are worse. Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example.
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      >Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example. Yes large multinationals have never adversely affected the environment.
      - badpun 1y ago
        The Soviet Union holds pretty much all the trophies in large-scale environment devastation.
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        The amount of environmental devastation in the third world by multinationals dwarfs anything the USSR did.
        decimalenough 1y ago
        Citation needed. Multinationals aren't angels, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've done that's on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea drying up, the Kyshtym disaster, Lake Karachay, etc. Even things like clear-cutting the Amazon are usually done by locals (although bigcos are more than happy to buy the resulting soybeans, beef, etc).
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        I think you live on another planet. Union Carbide alone killed thousands and thousands of people. Like there are so many industrial disasters caused by corporations that it's patently absurd to act like the USSR did more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Industrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster... Like on this list, the vast majority are done by corporations.
- atoav 1y ago
  > Reasonable people can disagree what counts as a positive vs negative externality. Eg if you like to be warm, perhaps you see global warming as positive externality. I know this was just an example (and you said you weren't entirely happy with it), but the thing about externalities is that yeah someone may like it warm, but just because the damage doesn't happen where you are, doesn't mean it does not happen. E.g. I could totally argue that I like draining that old oil from my car into the river next door since the river flows by and will carry the dirt away from my house. I externalize the pollution I'd have to deal with to the environment where other people live. Just because that cost is not affecting me in regards to that individual act, does not mean I didn't produce it. Or to stay with the climate example: Yeah someone might like it warmer, but do they also like rising sea levels, more extreme wheather events, draught, higher food prices, climate migration, the cultural changes it brings and/or the violence coming from trying to prevent it? And what when the temperature is reached that they no longer like? Climate systems have multiple decades of lag, so when they decide to stop the tanker moves on, and on, and on. Externalities are called that because they have to be paid by someone or something eventually. And not pricing them in is how you get neighbours who start to throw their dirt onto your lawn.
  - eru 1y ago
    I agree that you can get a handle on the specific problem I pointed out with externalities this way. However, there are two more hurdles: - First, you need to define what counts as the status quo, ie what do you measure externalities against? (But this is more of a problem in theory than in practice, I suspect.) - Second, you need to explain why Coasian bargaining isn't enough. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
yodsanklai 1y ago
> growth would always be good. I think the point of the book is that perpetual growth is physically impossible with bounded resources.
- eru 1y ago
  We are sitting on a giant ball of matter and we are getting plenty of fresh sunlight 24/7. It'll be a long while until physical impossibilities kick in, even without going into space.

eru 1y ago

> If there were not negative externalities being subsidized, i.e. perversely encouraged, then growth would always be good. That's a good start, but it's a bit more complicated. Reasonable people can disagree what counts as a positive vs negative externality. Eg if you like to be warm, perhaps you see global warming as positive externality. (Really silly example, but you can come up with better ones.) Also reasonable people can disagree about discounting rates. If current interest rates are very high, it can be economically rational to cut down a forest completely to get lots of lumber now, but severely damage long running production. If discounting rates are very low, then you'd leave the forest standing. If you internalise externalities, the problem becomes less extreme, but sufficiently large differences in discounting rates will still make it surface. > Once large corporations start making money where there is a negative sum conflict of interest, growth by definition very very bad. Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet.

eightysixfour 1y ago
> Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Having been in consulting for a long time, for many of these companies, let’s just say reasonable people can disagree with this.
- eru 1y ago
  I'm not saying that large multinationals are better than you think. I'm saying that the other actors (small companies, governments, private individuals, NGOs, etc) ain't any better, and many of them are worse. Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    >Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example. Yes large multinationals have never adversely affected the environment.
    - badpun 1y ago
      The Soviet Union holds pretty much all the trophies in large-scale environment devastation.
      - suddenlybananas 1y ago
        The amount of environmental devastation in the third world by multinationals dwarfs anything the USSR did.
        decimalenough 1y ago
        Citation needed. Multinationals aren't angels, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've done that's on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea drying up, the Kyshtym disaster, Lake Karachay, etc. Even things like clear-cutting the Amazon are usually done by locals (although bigcos are more than happy to buy the resulting soybeans, beef, etc).
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        I think you live on another planet. Union Carbide alone killed thousands and thousands of people. Like there are so many industrial disasters caused by corporations that it's patently absurd to act like the USSR did more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Industrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster... Like on this list, the vast majority are done by corporations.
atoav 1y ago
> Reasonable people can disagree what counts as a positive vs negative externality. Eg if you like to be warm, perhaps you see global warming as positive externality. I know this was just an example (and you said you weren't entirely happy with it), but the thing about externalities is that yeah someone may like it warm, but just because the damage doesn't happen where you are, doesn't mean it does not happen. E.g. I could totally argue that I like draining that old oil from my car into the river next door since the river flows by and will carry the dirt away from my house. I externalize the pollution I'd have to deal with to the environment where other people live. Just because that cost is not affecting me in regards to that individual act, does not mean I didn't produce it. Or to stay with the climate example: Yeah someone might like it warmer, but do they also like rising sea levels, more extreme wheather events, draught, higher food prices, climate migration, the cultural changes it brings and/or the violence coming from trying to prevent it? And what when the temperature is reached that they no longer like? Climate systems have multiple decades of lag, so when they decide to stop the tanker moves on, and on, and on. Externalities are called that because they have to be paid by someone or something eventually. And not pricing them in is how you get neighbours who start to throw their dirt onto your lawn.
- eru 1y ago
  I agree that you can get a handle on the specific problem I pointed out with externalities this way. However, there are two more hurdles: - First, you need to define what counts as the status quo, ie what do you measure externalities against? (But this is more of a problem in theory than in practice, I suspect.) - Second, you need to explain why Coasian bargaining isn't enough. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

yodsanklai 1y ago

> growth would always be good. I think the point of the book is that perpetual growth is physically impossible with bounded resources.

eru 1y ago
We are sitting on a giant ball of matter and we are getting plenty of fresh sunlight 24/7. It'll be a long while until physical impossibilities kick in, even without going into space.