4 ms·

People who think it's bad to want the world economy to grow probably haven't stopped to think about what economic growth consists of. Economic growth isn't jus

by pg 14y ago

People who think it's bad to want the world economy to grow probably haven't stopped to think about what economic growth consists of. Economic growth isn't just fat Americans buying bigger SUVs. It's also people in poor countries increasing their standard of living, and advances in medical care.

balsam 14y ago
could there be a case however against economic growth being too fast? an example of too fast would be building a chernobyl before the safety infrastructure was up.
- rohern 14y ago
  I am not sure how shoddy engineering equates with too fast economic growth. That seems like defining your terms so generally that they can refer to almost anything. I also think it is ironic that you chose as an example an infrastructure project not built as the result of capitalism.
- orijing 14y ago
  I wouldn't consider that growth, though.
  - balsam 14y ago
    Web.py is arguably an example of shoddy engineering in explosive software startups that did not become a medical experiment. "The results show that foremost among the causes of growth in U.S., German and Japanese manufacturing value added is electric power consumption."[1] Now I wouldn't pay too much attention to the word "causes" in there, but... Define your terms too precisely and there would be nothing to think about. [1]"Engineering and Economic Growth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04000578 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04...
  - balsam 14y ago
    Web.py is arguably an example of shoddy engineering in explosive software startups that did not become a medical experiment. "The results show that foremost among the causes of growth in U.S., German and Japanese manufacturing value added is electric power consumption."[1] Now I wouldn't pay too much attention to the word "causes" in there, but... Define your terms too precisely and there would be nothing to think about. [1]"Engineering and Economic Growth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04000578 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04...
- mseebach 14y ago
  As others have pointed out, Chernobyl is a terribly example for the point you're trying to make. Growth can probably be too fast - China has some problems in this regard, infrastructure, basic services, environmental concerns, the political system etc. can't quite keep up with the reasonable demands of a rapidly growing new middle class. The growth rates attainable for the US and Europe, however, are unlikely to be dangerous.
illuminate 14y ago
Criticizing globalism and the externalities of "wanting the world economy to grow" is not an argument against increasing the standards of living worldwide, and I'm not sure why you're conflating the two.
- rohern 14y ago
  His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty. As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they will spend today), one of the results of that behavior is additional economic opportunity for poor countries and poor people. You could state a case that the net gain from this behavior makes it not worth having, as the social and environmental costs of using natural and human resources to produce unneeded products obfuscates the value of the resultant economic growth, but then you would need to present data and math.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty." That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
    - rohern 14y ago
      We are talking about different things. I am not talking about class mobility. I am talking about the wealth of nations.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        Why are you stating that Capitalism must not be restricted or impeded if the wealth of a nation is to increase?
creatrixcordis 14y ago
Yeah right!!! Nice spin on it dude. Increasing their standard of living while being subject to poor environmental conditions because of their corrupt officials who are pushed to be corrupt by our corrupt politicians, and so on. It's easy for you to say that while living in the land of the plenty and the so called free. Why dont you focus exclusively on startups with a whole-world(env-friendly) minded approach, because you my friend are in a position to impact the world for the good more than other people. Im sure the over consumption could be regulated a bit by a buy nothing day, its no different than a turn off your lights day, it's actually better than that, it forces us to ask why do we buy? And if your answer to that is "to be happy" oh man you have swallowed the wrong pill when given the choice. -a person that will never kiss your ass
- MSM 14y ago
  I buy plenty of things to make me happy. I don't need the internet. Either do you. I also don't need to eat anything other than bean tortillas, but I will. I could probably get through my life wiping with single ply, but I'd rather have double. If that makes me a bad guy in your eyes, ah well. I'm sure a few of the beers I went out my way to purchase will ease the pain.
  - creatrixcordis 14y ago
    I guess moderation in peoples consumption levels and the types of consumption are relative, but i'm sure there is a line where they become dangerous for the rest of the people living on the planet, but we in the 1st world really don't understand where that line is since we are not faced with the issues other people in the world are, so we look down and say who cares that i have enough while you don't, that's just how things are, hurry up and get over here too so you can have this too, what happens when all the people do? what then? We will just wait for someone else to figure it out while we comment on hacker news and have a beer and use the internet all at the same time and eat 1st world burritos and post on facebook with our 9 billion cell phones, all at the same time, hopefully we can all do this all at the same time, and in the process of figuring it out some of us are just unlucky to be born in a different vantage point, where we don't have cell phones, barely can carry water to drink to our families, try to fish in waters that are not polluted, education is scarce, all this because the ones born into the more favorable vantage point wait for others to fix the problems while they fat on their couches and complain that obesity is a problem because the corporations feed us fat food, and to think that we can actually help those people if we just want to? if we just approached the problem with the same vigor as we approach securing our oil-reserves, but who gives a fuck, all we do is just sit here on hacker news and complain and bitch and comment and feel good because we get points and we are on the main page but it all equates to nothing and i am guilty for it, so i'm going to go out and get breakfast at one of the many places available to me, happy thanksgiving
guelo 14y ago
That was an ad hominem response to the question of can we continue using resources at an ever increasing rate. That includes asking if the world can afford to bring the poor up to western living standards. They are ugly questions but it doesn't make sense to burry our heads in the sand about them.
- mseebach 14y ago
  I don't think anyone is burying their heads over this. The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are.
  - rohern 14y ago
    "The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are." The argument -- as far as I have witnessed it -- is not about preventing the poor from becoming rich. The argument is should richer people need to suffer to effect the enrichment of the poor. Acting to prevent is not the same thing as not acting to effect.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      That's not very different. It implies a level of wealth that can't be made available to the poor, regardless of the fact that we have in our selflessness given it up. The answer to "we can't afford it" is the same to many other scenarios where you can't afford something but need to get it anyway: Figure out how to make it work. Inventing non-fossil liquid fuels would make a very good start.
- pg 14y ago
  I don't think ad hominem is the phrase you want here. I think what you mean is, the more important question is whether we can continue to consume resources at the rate we do. And my reply to that is that creating more wealth doesn't necessarily imply consuming more resources. For example, new versions of machines often consume less power, not more.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
krisc 14y ago
You're right, but I think the main point of the campaign is to show that the way the world economy is growing is harmful to our planet.

by pg 14y ago

balsam 14y ago

could there be a case however against economic growth being too fast? an example of too fast would be building a chernobyl before the safety infrastructure was up.

rohern 14y ago
I am not sure how shoddy engineering equates with too fast economic growth. That seems like defining your terms so generally that they can refer to almost anything. I also think it is ironic that you chose as an example an infrastructure project not built as the result of capitalism.
orijing 14y ago
I wouldn't consider that growth, though.
- balsam 14y ago
  Web.py is arguably an example of shoddy engineering in explosive software startups that did not become a medical experiment. "The results show that foremost among the causes of growth in U.S., German and Japanese manufacturing value added is electric power consumption."[1] Now I wouldn't pay too much attention to the word "causes" in there, but... Define your terms too precisely and there would be nothing to think about. [1]"Engineering and Economic Growth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04000578 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04...
- balsam 14y ago
  Web.py is arguably an example of shoddy engineering in explosive software startups that did not become a medical experiment. "The results show that foremost among the causes of growth in U.S., German and Japanese manufacturing value added is electric power consumption."[1] Now I wouldn't pay too much attention to the word "causes" in there, but... Define your terms too precisely and there would be nothing to think about. [1]"Engineering and Economic Growth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04000578 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04...
mseebach 14y ago
As others have pointed out, Chernobyl is a terribly example for the point you're trying to make. Growth can probably be too fast - China has some problems in this regard, infrastructure, basic services, environmental concerns, the political system etc. can't quite keep up with the reasonable demands of a rapidly growing new middle class. The growth rates attainable for the US and Europe, however, are unlikely to be dangerous.

illuminate 14y ago

Criticizing globalism and the externalities of "wanting the world economy to grow" is not an argument against increasing the standards of living worldwide, and I'm not sure why you're conflating the two.

rohern 14y ago
His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty. As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they will spend today), one of the results of that behavior is additional economic opportunity for poor countries and poor people. You could state a case that the net gain from this behavior makes it not worth having, as the social and environmental costs of using natural and human resources to produce unneeded products obfuscates the value of the resultant economic growth, but then you would need to present data and math.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty." That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
  - rohern 14y ago
    We are talking about different things. I am not talking about class mobility. I am talking about the wealth of nations.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      Why are you stating that Capitalism must not be restricted or impeded if the wealth of a nation is to increase?

creatrixcordis 14y ago

Yeah right!!! Nice spin on it dude. Increasing their standard of living while being subject to poor environmental conditions because of their corrupt officials who are pushed to be corrupt by our corrupt politicians, and so on. It's easy for you to say that while living in the land of the plenty and the so called free. Why dont you focus exclusively on startups with a whole-world(env-friendly) minded approach, because you my friend are in a position to impact the world for the good more than other people. Im sure the over consumption could be regulated a bit by a buy nothing day, its no different than a turn off your lights day, it's actually better than that, it forces us to ask why do we buy? And if your answer to that is "to be happy" oh man you have swallowed the wrong pill when given the choice. -a person that will never kiss your ass

MSM 14y ago
I buy plenty of things to make me happy. I don't need the internet. Either do you. I also don't need to eat anything other than bean tortillas, but I will. I could probably get through my life wiping with single ply, but I'd rather have double. If that makes me a bad guy in your eyes, ah well. I'm sure a few of the beers I went out my way to purchase will ease the pain.
- creatrixcordis 14y ago
  I guess moderation in peoples consumption levels and the types of consumption are relative, but i'm sure there is a line where they become dangerous for the rest of the people living on the planet, but we in the 1st world really don't understand where that line is since we are not faced with the issues other people in the world are, so we look down and say who cares that i have enough while you don't, that's just how things are, hurry up and get over here too so you can have this too, what happens when all the people do? what then? We will just wait for someone else to figure it out while we comment on hacker news and have a beer and use the internet all at the same time and eat 1st world burritos and post on facebook with our 9 billion cell phones, all at the same time, hopefully we can all do this all at the same time, and in the process of figuring it out some of us are just unlucky to be born in a different vantage point, where we don't have cell phones, barely can carry water to drink to our families, try to fish in waters that are not polluted, education is scarce, all this because the ones born into the more favorable vantage point wait for others to fix the problems while they fat on their couches and complain that obesity is a problem because the corporations feed us fat food, and to think that we can actually help those people if we just want to? if we just approached the problem with the same vigor as we approach securing our oil-reserves, but who gives a fuck, all we do is just sit here on hacker news and complain and bitch and comment and feel good because we get points and we are on the main page but it all equates to nothing and i am guilty for it, so i'm going to go out and get breakfast at one of the many places available to me, happy thanksgiving

guelo 14y ago

That was an ad hominem response to the question of can we continue using resources at an ever increasing rate. That includes asking if the world can afford to bring the poor up to western living standards. They are ugly questions but it doesn't make sense to burry our heads in the sand about them.

mseebach 14y ago
I don't think anyone is burying their heads over this. The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are.
- rohern 14y ago
  "The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are." The argument -- as far as I have witnessed it -- is not about preventing the poor from becoming rich. The argument is should richer people need to suffer to effect the enrichment of the poor. Acting to prevent is not the same thing as not acting to effect.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    That's not very different. It implies a level of wealth that can't be made available to the poor, regardless of the fact that we have in our selflessness given it up. The answer to "we can't afford it" is the same to many other scenarios where you can't afford something but need to get it anyway: Figure out how to make it work. Inventing non-fossil liquid fuels would make a very good start.
pg 14y ago
I don't think ad hominem is the phrase you want here. I think what you mean is, the more important question is whether we can continue to consume resources at the rate we do. And my reply to that is that creating more wealth doesn't necessarily imply consuming more resources. For example, new versions of machines often consume less power, not more.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

krisc 14y ago

You're right, but I think the main point of the campaign is to show that the way the world economy is growing is harmful to our planet.