3 ms·

> Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP

> Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP or profit figures do not adequately capture the difference between a $200 smartphone and a $200 feature phone. Please... The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. It's not a game of numbers as you want to put, as if the uncaptured value between a phone and a shinier phone "balanced out" the problems behind it's means of production. > Capitalism does not promise to solve global optimization problems which are not priced in or demanded, that's the whole point of having a democracy in order to set the constraints of the game, a negative external feedback system. It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article.

cromwellian 13y ago
>The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. The study says that the majority of those costs are CO2 (38%) and water (25%). Can you prove that it is impossible to run those 100 companies any more efficiently, that sustainable energy and efficient use of water can never be made profitable? Your original assertion was "The notion of economic growth is tied to environmental and human labor exploitation, at fundamental levels." You have fundamentally not proven that assertion with this evidence, that it is impossible to have economic growth in a sustainable way. What you have done is point out our current inefficiencies, not that the laws of physics preclude it. >It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. Right, because you have evidence of problems in the current system, it means it is irrevocably broken? To be replaced with what? What is your alternative than, Marxism? This sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the right who point to government failures and then make a logical leap that government can't be improved. >The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article. The government's primary objective is to stay in power. If it's primary purpose was purely economic growth, they'd be going crazy on Keynesian spending, as many eastern countries do to prop up growth. The US government hasn't done much at all in the last 6 years to prop who growth at any cost (unless you count grid lock and inaction as "at all costs"). And European nations wouldn't be implementing austerity policies if their goals were growth at any cost. This is a vast simplification of the motivations of the political. If you want to see "growth at any cost" look at Chinese domestic spending. The Western electorate is far more sensitive to unemployment, inflation, or benefit cuts than it is to abstract notions of "growth". Throughout most of the "great recession", GDP growth has been positive, yet no one is happy, because voters don't vote based on quarterly GDP growth, and attempts to maximize that variable hurt others that politicians care about. That's why the Federal Reserve is now doing nomimal unemployment targeting instead of only fighting inflation. I mean, I fail to understand what your primary philosophy is. Growth is bad? We are doomed? We should give up our modern lifestyle because you think it is impossible to sustain it? That technology and politics can't save us?

cromwellian 13y ago

>The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. The study says that the majority of those costs are CO2 (38%) and water (25%). Can you prove that it is impossible to run those 100 companies any more efficiently, that sustainable energy and efficient use of water can never be made profitable? Your original assertion was "The notion of economic growth is tied to environmental and human labor exploitation, at fundamental levels." You have fundamentally not proven that assertion with this evidence, that it is impossible to have economic growth in a sustainable way. What you have done is point out our current inefficiencies, not that the laws of physics preclude it. >It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. Right, because you have evidence of problems in the current system, it means it is irrevocably broken? To be replaced with what? What is your alternative than, Marxism? This sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the right who point to government failures and then make a logical leap that government can't be improved. >The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article. The government's primary objective is to stay in power. If it's primary purpose was purely economic growth, they'd be going crazy on Keynesian spending, as many eastern countries do to prop up growth. The US government hasn't done much at all in the last 6 years to prop who growth at any cost (unless you count grid lock and inaction as "at all costs"). And European nations wouldn't be implementing austerity policies if their goals were growth at any cost. This is a vast simplification of the motivations of the political. If you want to see "growth at any cost" look at Chinese domestic spending. The Western electorate is far more sensitive to unemployment, inflation, or benefit cuts than it is to abstract notions of "growth". Throughout most of the "great recession", GDP growth has been positive, yet no one is happy, because voters don't vote based on quarterly GDP growth, and attempts to maximize that variable hurt others that politicians care about. That's why the Federal Reserve is now doing nomimal unemployment targeting instead of only fighting inflation. I mean, I fail to understand what your primary philosophy is. Growth is bad? We are doomed? We should give up our modern lifestyle because you think it is impossible to sustain it? That technology and politics can't save us?