Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 343 posts

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#171

Post by mathattack »

b0rsuk wrote: post #28

Growth is an international arms race. I think the biggest problem is that economic growth gives countries a (military) advantage. If you opt out of growth-based economic system, your neighbors will have more army or resources or manpower. They will eventually invade you or dominate you economically. This is similar to the situation Africans were during Industrial Revolution. Europeans needed a lot of workers for fact…

It’s not just an arms race. Growth funds everything, including social programs and saving the environment.

Granted some growth (productivity driven) is better than others (resource driven.)

For better or worse we can’t fund solutions to the world’s problems with austerity.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#172

Post by adamsea »

b0rsuk wrote: post #28

Growth is an international arms race. I think the biggest problem is that economic growth gives countries a (military) advantage. If you opt out of growth-based economic system, your neighbors will have more army or resources or manpower. They will eventually invade you or dominate you economically. This is similar to the situation Africans were during Industrial Revolution. Europeans needed a lot of workers for fact…

In an ideal world, growth which took true account of things we currently consider externalities (i.e. pollution), would be ecologically sustainable, and, drastically reduce the human suffering and loss of life of countries which practiced it.

In my fantasy world, out of all the people who didn't die of cancer from air pollution, that lost human potential, translates into scientific, cultural, and technological advancements which balance out whatever military disadvantage may or may not exist : ).

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#173

Post by mech1234 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #159
weeksie wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those points are relevant to the larger one.

The first point directly contradicts your main argument; that without growth, economics is zero-sum. We have growth, yet none of that growth is captured by middle income people. The growth (and wealth) is being plundered.

It's false that none of the growth is being captured by middle income people. It is being captured to a greater extent by the very top of the income distribution and by the global poor, but income is growing across the board.

Real median wages and household income in the U.S. are higher than they've ever been.

This is all despite the increased international competition typified by globalization trends and detailed by the Elephant Curve.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

https://milescorak.com/2016/05/18/the-winners-and-losers-of-...

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#174

Post by cjfd »

weeksie wrote: post #136

The one fundamental reason why growth is so important is that without growth, the economy becomes a zero sum game. In order for you to get more money you must take it from someone else since there is only a fixed amount. A low growth world is one where we plunder each others' wealth, not one were the incentives are aligned with building new industry. That's why productivity increases are so important. Without them, i…

This is incorrect. If GDP is constant it means that every year the same amount of goods is produced. There can be a new industry in this case. It just means that another industry needs to get smaller. The workers in the other industry can move to the new one and no one is worse for the wear.

GDP is the derivative of the amount of goods and not the amount of goods.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#175

Post by dgb23 »

whiddershins wrote: post #127

Growth includes technological advancement, including for example ... trying to cure cancer and Alzheimer’s. Am I correct in this? If so, please let’s stick with growth.

Innovation can positively influence growth. But the article, including references and papers, is not about reducing innovation.

It is about the fallacy that economic growth (= increase in GDP), somehow magically solves all problems of society. This belief is mostly ideological and the implication is that the market should not be regulated, which would reduce growth and prosperity. The effects of this strategy include increased inequality, weak infrastructure/education and ecological exploitation with dire consequences.

Innovation, which really advances society in sustainable ways, is often intrinsically or socially motivated, not financially and certainly not by a GDP increase, which benefits a tiny minority.

Reducing inequality, improving education and increasing individual freedom within organizations seem to be much more sensible ways to fuel innovation in the long term, than just deregulating the market.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#176

Post by naringas »

well, we better figure out how to do it or will kill the planet and then die along with it.

it's not an easy challenge; over 6000 years of western cultural evolution are built, hinged and based on growth and expansion by exploitation. but there aren't many thing left to exploit nor expand into.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#177

Post by zemvpferreira »

thu2111 wrote: post #169
rbrtl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you know OP didn't mean those: > Except medical advances and science, I'd be all willing to trade ALL the economic "growth" I don't understand if you're making a larger point or not, but the "first world" is the focus of the discussion of whether or not growth economics is harmful. It worked fantastically well for the first world for many years, possibly even the 200 year scale that the commenter above challe…

Problem is that view is contradictory. In the absence of discovering a natural resource bounty, GDP (economic) growth comes from two sources: 1. More people working harder. 2. Better technology. If you exclude "medical advances and science" you're basically excluding (2) which means the only source of growth is (1). More people working harder. Saying the world can only get better by increasing the number of hours we…

That's a big claim you're making. Can't economic growth (AKA inflation) come about from rising asset prices such as houses?

It seems to me that conflating humanity's progress and economic growth is exactly where our problems start.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#178

Post by fhood »

mathattack wrote: post #171
b0rsuk wrote: post #28

Growth is an international arms race. I think the biggest problem is that economic growth gives countries a (military) advantage. If you opt out of growth-based economic system, your neighbors will have more army or resources or manpower. They will eventually invade you or dominate you economically. This is similar to the situation Africans were during Industrial Revolution. Europeans needed a lot of workers for fact…

It’s not just an arms race. Growth funds everything, including social programs and saving the environment. Granted some growth (productivity driven) is better than others (resource driven.) For better or worse we can’t fund solutions to the world’s problems with austerity.

Also isn't growth a natural result of human progress? As science and technology move forwards they allow for more productivity per person and thus drive growth right? Or is that an overly simplistic notion?

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#179

Post by beefield »

chii wrote: post #132
beefield wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Denmark you can take a mortgage and "pay" negative interest rate [1]. That is, you pay less back than what you borrowed. I fully agree that most people would expect the interest rate to be positive, but their expectation is no rule. Actually I am very sure interest rates have no causal relationship with continuous growth. The one (and only?) thing where the the continuous growth requirement comes from is that most…

that denmark negative interest rate is interesting. But it still doesn't quite answer the central issue - who is "giving up" money to lend? The guardian article ( https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019aug/13/danish-bank-lau... ) only mentions that it's banks passing on negative rates from institutional lenders in money markets.

Sorry, I do not quite understand your question.

Anyway, it is ultimately (when you get your head around it, that is...) relatively simple. These institutional investors have cash (well, not exactly cash, but "cash" as in overnight deposits) that they need to invest. some poart of that they want to invest in "safe" instruments, e.g. bonds/commercial papers issued by banks. And it happens to be that they are willing to do that even if they are paid negative interest rate[1]. So the bank pays for its funding say -1.0%. Then the bank can lend the money forward with -0.5% and still make money.

[1] Why do they want to do that? If you have a decent amount of money, say millions, and you want to save that for a while to purchase something say next month, you have not that many good alternatives to bank deposits/commercial papers/bonds. Actual cash is surprisingly cumbersome and expensive. Stocks are risky, you may lose quite a bit within one month. Government bonds pay even less. so if your bank says yep, we take your money for a month and pay you back a bit less in a month, you are likely going to swallow it.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#180

Post by rbrtl »

thu2111 wrote: post #169
rbrtl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you know OP didn't mean those: > Except medical advances and science, I'd be all willing to trade ALL the economic "growth" I don't understand if you're making a larger point or not, but the "first world" is the focus of the discussion of whether or not growth economics is harmful. It worked fantastically well for the first world for many years, possibly even the 200 year scale that the commenter above challe…

Problem is that view is contradictory. In the absence of discovering a natural resource bounty, GDP (economic) growth comes from two sources: 1. More people working harder. 2. Better technology. If you exclude "medical advances and science" you're basically excluding (2) which means the only source of growth is (1). More people working harder. Saying the world can only get better by increasing the number of hours we…

I have no idea where this contradiction is coming from. OP explicitly stated that they would maintain, keep, hold on to, medical advances and science growth... They would trade _other_ growth such as land values, asset inflation etc. to undo the harm done.

And just because I was perusing this earlier today: the UK Government's plan for the future /is/ to have people work for longer[1].

I agree with you. Make no mistake in that. Denying that those who push growth economics seek only to further their own interests, not those of humanity, is a curious and dangerous position in the face of the evidence. This graph[2] shows that since deregulation they have increased their relative gain, at the expense of those worse off. It would be trivial to show that these same people made their money by eroding the welfare of everyone else, environmentally and economically.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/19...

Post reply on HN