3 ms·

But economic growth fails to model externalities. All that stuff is good, unless we cook the earth using it and kill everyone. iPhones are great for us but what

But economic growth fails to model externalities. All that stuff is good, unless we cook the earth using it and kill everyone. iPhones are great for us but what about the kids dying the lithium mine? … Probably not popular ideas on this forum, but they also can’t just be dismissed (but they will get downvoted lol).

sobellian 2mo ago
A single carbon tax would be a market-oriented solution that captures the externality of CO2 emission - and would likely still permit economic growth! You don't need to revolutionize the entire basis on which human civilization has acted for millennia in order to solve the problem. And if you did have to, one could reasonably expect that effort to fail.
- newspaper1 2mo ago
  That’s one single variable out of near infinite externalities. Other examples: collapsing the food chain by wiping out critical pieces through urbanization, microplastics poisoning all animal life (potentially), global warming due to heat capture of asphalt… Some of these may have solutions, some might not be problems but what’s definitely true is that “growth = good” is way too simplistic a model.
  - sobellian 2mo ago
    I think there's a middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and degrowth. As far as I can tell no one in this thread has been arguing that laissez-faire always produces great outcomes, simply (and rightly) that degrowth is a horrible idea.
    - newspaper1 2mo ago
      I’m talking about our existing economy, not laissez-faire. These externalities are not modeled in it. > simply (and rightly) that degrowth is a horrible idea. I don’t agree that it’s this clear. If growth is happening mainly for the rich (which it currently is), then I fully support de-growing them.
      - sobellian 2mo ago
        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://old.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1qcy40d/growth_in_us_real_wages_by_income_group_from_1979/ https://old.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1qcy40d/growth_in_u... It's nice to be wealthy, but growth is happening for everyone. But as an overarching point, you appear to be arguing against a strawman. No one as far as I can tell in this thread is arguing for the status quo, especially regarding climate policy. They're just arguing against the notion that humanity's lot can be improved by nuking the economy in order to save the climate. I understand that it is a lot more boring to discuss measured market interventions than eating the rich (incidentally, how will eating the rich solve the environmental problems of urbanization?). But it will be a lot more productive assuming one's starting goal is truly the environment rather than eating the rich.
        newspaper1 2mo ago
        I mean those charts don’t pass the sniff test. Being healthy (or sick for that matter!) was basically free, now it costs over a thousand dollars a month in insurance. A huge chunk of most people’s income. Same with housing (and education): https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-home-prices-1985-2025/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-...
        sobellian 2mo ago
        Is it fair to say that you're more interested in discussing wealth inequality than environmental policy?
        newspaper1 2mo ago
        Degrowth touches both subjects. Billionaires for instance are top polluters. Leveling resource distribution would prevent that.
      - snapplebobapple 1mo ago

sobellian 2mo ago

A single carbon tax would be a market-oriented solution that captures the externality of CO2 emission - and would likely still permit economic growth! You don't need to revolutionize the entire basis on which human civilization has acted for millennia in order to solve the problem. And if you did have to, one could reasonably expect that effort to fail.

newspaper1 2mo ago
That’s one single variable out of near infinite externalities. Other examples: collapsing the food chain by wiping out critical pieces through urbanization, microplastics poisoning all animal life (potentially), global warming due to heat capture of asphalt… Some of these may have solutions, some might not be problems but what’s definitely true is that “growth = good” is way too simplistic a model.
- sobellian 2mo ago
  I think there's a middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and degrowth. As far as I can tell no one in this thread has been arguing that laissez-faire always produces great outcomes, simply (and rightly) that degrowth is a horrible idea.
  - newspaper1 2mo ago
    I’m talking about our existing economy, not laissez-faire. These externalities are not modeled in it. > simply (and rightly) that degrowth is a horrible idea. I don’t agree that it’s this clear. If growth is happening mainly for the rich (which it currently is), then I fully support de-growing them.
    - sobellian 2mo ago
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://old.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1qcy40d/growth_in_us_real_wages_by_income_group_from_1979/ https://old.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1qcy40d/growth_in_u... It's nice to be wealthy, but growth is happening for everyone. But as an overarching point, you appear to be arguing against a strawman. No one as far as I can tell in this thread is arguing for the status quo, especially regarding climate policy. They're just arguing against the notion that humanity's lot can be improved by nuking the economy in order to save the climate. I understand that it is a lot more boring to discuss measured market interventions than eating the rich (incidentally, how will eating the rich solve the environmental problems of urbanization?). But it will be a lot more productive assuming one's starting goal is truly the environment rather than eating the rich.
      - newspaper1 2mo ago
        I mean those charts don’t pass the sniff test. Being healthy (or sick for that matter!) was basically free, now it costs over a thousand dollars a month in insurance. A huge chunk of most people’s income. Same with housing (and education): https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-home-prices-1985-2025/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-...
        sobellian 2mo ago
        Is it fair to say that you're more interested in discussing wealth inequality than environmental policy?
        newspaper1 2mo ago
        Degrowth touches both subjects. Billionaires for instance are top polluters. Leveling resource distribution would prevent that.
    - snapplebobapple 1mo ago