5 ms·

Meh. What do we need economic growth for anyway? Producing and throwing away another hundred million tons of food every year? New phones every six months or onc

by danbruc 12y ago

Meh. What do we need economic growth for anyway? Producing and throwing away another hundred million tons of food every year? New phones every six months or once a quarter? A third car? More shoes? We have enough of everything and much more, there is absolutely no need to grow western economies any further.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CalRobert 12y ago
I generally agree with the sentiment you express, but I think you're not really addressing the issue at hand. People moving in to finance does not seem likely to reduce our environmental impact. Even so, you are right that western economies don't really have a shortage of goods, per se. The idea that low birth rates are a bad thing or that houses should go up in price, etc. are lunacy. Why do we want it to be hard to afford a secure home? Why do we need even more than 7 billion people? Maybe someday I'd like to not have to rent, but I won't be able to because houses will be $3 million by the time I can afford to buy what's out there now.
- rtkwe 12y ago
  To choose one, low birth rates leads an aging population which is an issue because it generally means a contracting labor force and more burden on the younger group of the population to support things like Social Security as the ratio of 'young' productive workers to supported older non-workers increases. It also means a shrinking labor pool which drives wages up causing prices to generally rise as well.
mikeash 12y ago
We don't have nearly enough health. The ability to spend more on medical research is enough reason all by itself to keep the economy growing.
- danbruc 12y ago
  Why do we need growth for that? Wouldn't redirecting wasted resources do just fine?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    That will get you some. Growth will get you more, faster.
    - collyw 12y ago
      Not really. If everyone worked one day a week less, and used that day to exercise, we would have lower productivity and better health.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        If everyone worked one day a week less, and used that day to exercise, and put the other four days into continuing to grow the economy, we'd be better off still.
        collyw 12y ago
        when its only the 0.1% that see any benefit in that growth, why bother? The point obviously was to compare like for like.
javajosh 12y ago
It's true we as a species don't need economic growth, but we could really use some scientific and technological growth to achieve the twin aims of a) maintaining our beautiful biosphere, and b) extending it beyond earth. Unfortunately, the individual, market demand for these large-scale "products" is minuscule - which means that (modulo SpaceX) you only get political will behind them, which means academic research funded by government grants, which means a not-very-well-paid and overtly politicized existence for anyone wanting to "get out and push". That said, I think there's a curious and under-served middle-ground in First-World countries, particularly in the US, which is to develop distributed, self-reliant, green (and inherently 'local') ways of living through technology. It helps with the biosphere goal, and plays to the "rugged individualism" meme that is still present, at least in a vestigial form. Maybe when people are running their own solar panels, hydroponic garden/air purifier, reusing waste water, there will be less interest in finance.
nawitus 12y ago
Why is the current standard of living the ideal? Why not 10 years ago, or 10 years into the future? How about 20? 30?
- danbruc 12y ago
  I don't think that the current standard of living is ideal and I really hope it will improve a lot. But I don't see that improving the standard of living requires economic growth, I think change will do.
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    This is a common misconception about economic growth. Economic growth often means more physical stuff, but there is by no means a fixed link between the two. Higher quality products built out of the same amount of physical stuff have a higher price, for example, so if we somehow transitioned the economy in that direction, there would be economic growth - and a corresponding increase in the standard of living - without pushing environmental concerns, for example.
- sebastianconcpt 12y ago
  As long as there is violence, we will not be able to say we actually achieved Civilisation. So, no. We are quite far from the ideal standard of living. We are more in a semi-spherical ball of water and continental psychiatric hospitals
  - Retra 12y ago
    Sorry, but that is nonsense. Nobody cares if you can say you "achieved civilization," because that's not a term anybody has every used to qualify human achievement. You're painting a portrait that nobody cares to look at. That, and what you've said is just patently false by any definition in circulation.
    - danbruc 12y ago
      I actually have to agree. Everybody is easily able to imagine what the world should be like - no war, no crime, no starving, no destroying the planet. And what are we actually doing? We are so incredible far off. And there are zero real obstacles, only human stupidity and evilness. Everybody on its own is only a bit stupid, evil, egoistic or what not, but all off us combined are anything but good. We are making little baby steps, ridiculous tiny baby steps.

by danbruc 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

CalRobert 12y ago

I generally agree with the sentiment you express, but I think you're not really addressing the issue at hand. People moving in to finance does not seem likely to reduce our environmental impact. Even so, you are right that western economies don't really have a shortage of goods, per se. The idea that low birth rates are a bad thing or that houses should go up in price, etc. are lunacy. Why do we want it to be hard to afford a secure home? Why do we need even more than 7 billion people? Maybe someday I'd like to not have to rent, but I won't be able to because houses will be $3 million by the time I can afford to buy what's out there now.

rtkwe 12y ago
To choose one, low birth rates leads an aging population which is an issue because it generally means a contracting labor force and more burden on the younger group of the population to support things like Social Security as the ratio of 'young' productive workers to supported older non-workers increases. It also means a shrinking labor pool which drives wages up causing prices to generally rise as well.

mikeash 12y ago

We don't have nearly enough health. The ability to spend more on medical research is enough reason all by itself to keep the economy growing.

danbruc 12y ago
Why do we need growth for that? Wouldn't redirecting wasted resources do just fine?
- mikeash 12y ago
  That will get you some. Growth will get you more, faster.
  - collyw 12y ago
    Not really. If everyone worked one day a week less, and used that day to exercise, we would have lower productivity and better health.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      If everyone worked one day a week less, and used that day to exercise, and put the other four days into continuing to grow the economy, we'd be better off still.
      - collyw 12y ago
        when its only the 0.1% that see any benefit in that growth, why bother? The point obviously was to compare like for like.

javajosh 12y ago

It's true we as a species don't need economic growth, but we could really use some scientific and technological growth to achieve the twin aims of a) maintaining our beautiful biosphere, and b) extending it beyond earth. Unfortunately, the individual, market demand for these large-scale "products" is minuscule - which means that (modulo SpaceX) you only get political will behind them, which means academic research funded by government grants, which means a not-very-well-paid and overtly politicized existence for anyone wanting to "get out and push". That said, I think there's a curious and under-served middle-ground in First-World countries, particularly in the US, which is to develop distributed, self-reliant, green (and inherently 'local') ways of living through technology. It helps with the biosphere goal, and plays to the "rugged individualism" meme that is still present, at least in a vestigial form. Maybe when people are running their own solar panels, hydroponic garden/air purifier, reusing waste water, there will be less interest in finance.

nawitus 12y ago

Why is the current standard of living the ideal? Why not 10 years ago, or 10 years into the future? How about 20? 30?

danbruc 12y ago
I don't think that the current standard of living is ideal and I really hope it will improve a lot. But I don't see that improving the standard of living requires economic growth, I think change will do.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  This is a common misconception about economic growth. Economic growth often means more physical stuff, but there is by no means a fixed link between the two. Higher quality products built out of the same amount of physical stuff have a higher price, for example, so if we somehow transitioned the economy in that direction, there would be economic growth - and a corresponding increase in the standard of living - without pushing environmental concerns, for example.
sebastianconcpt 12y ago
As long as there is violence, we will not be able to say we actually achieved Civilisation. So, no. We are quite far from the ideal standard of living. We are more in a semi-spherical ball of water and continental psychiatric hospitals
- Retra 12y ago
  Sorry, but that is nonsense. Nobody cares if you can say you "achieved civilization," because that's not a term anybody has every used to qualify human achievement. You're painting a portrait that nobody cares to look at. That, and what you've said is just patently false by any definition in circulation.
  - danbruc 12y ago
    I actually have to agree. Everybody is easily able to imagine what the world should be like - no war, no crime, no starving, no destroying the planet. And what are we actually doing? We are so incredible far off. And there are zero real obstacles, only human stupidity and evilness. Everybody on its own is only a bit stupid, evil, egoistic or what not, but all off us combined are anything but good. We are making little baby steps, ridiculous tiny baby steps.