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

251–260 of 343 posts

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#251

Post by take_a_breath »

merpnderp wrote: post #38
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…

1% growth difference over 100 years is the difference between the per capita income of the US vs Mexico. So yes, unless you arbitrarily limit the entire globe to some level of prosperity like a novel about a disutopian world ruled by an evil anti-science theocracy, people are going to look at countries growing faster than them and wonder why they have to slum it like peasants without their flying cars and vacations o…

==people are going to look at countries growing faster than them and wonder why they have to slum it like peasants without their flying cars and vacations on the moon==

On the flip side, France typically has slower economic growth than the US, but that growth is spread much more evenly across the population. What good is growth if only a small portion of the country is benefiting from it?

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#253

Post by merpnderp »

Aunche wrote: post #191
coldtea wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So yes, unless you arbitrarily limit the entire globe to some level of prosperity like a novel about a disutopian world ruled by an evil anti-science theocracy, I don't see much evil to that (limiting the "the entire globe to some level of prosperity"). Nor it has anything to do with being anti-science. You could be pro-science (pro understanding the world, physics, math, etc), and against continuous growth. Better…

It doesn't matter if you're ok with it. The problem is that everyone has to agree with you for it to work, which can't happen outside of force.

All these plans for utopia always rely on bending other people to their will at the end of a gun, exactly like every other utopian nightmare.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#254

Post by anchpop »

pif wrote: post #206
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…

As bilekas was saying, the one fundamental reason why growth must not be so important is that it cannot continue ad infinitum, thus we will have to learn and cope with that. While you state an important point, the issue of growth having to stop (sooner or later) cannot be ignored.

Why can't it be ignored? I think we're very far away from the point where growth is impossible. We haven't even left Earth yet. Imagine the amount of wealth you could create with a moon-based space elevator.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#255

Post by rtkwe »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #221
rtkwe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that a fancy way of saying "eating meat should be a privilege for the wealthy"? Kind of, it's a problem of externalized costs beef is only really cheap because the environmental toll of feeding and housing them isn't felt by the purchaser. If the same food and water required to make your steak would be used to feed people directly there would be much less food insecurity in the world for example. Meat is deci…

Lol, more like the majority of hackernews readers is likely to be in the top 1% : > $32,400 annual income OR > $770,000 in net worth https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061... (Also, I've heard that having at least 1 year of college (or other form of superior education?) meant that one was in the top 1% of world most "educated", but haven't found any sources that would confirm/infirm that...)

I wanted to make some allowances for HN readers in poorer countries which I know some do. But yes the overwhelming majority are in the global 1%. My original statement was even broader that just by having internet access and a computer you're in the top but access has been growing so much I'm not as certain.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#256

Post by viklove »

mech1234 wrote: post #211
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's 10% total --over 40 years-- not 10% annualized. In 1979, the median real weekly earnings was $335. Today, it is $362. The actual calculation, 362-335/335 = 8.05%. Over 40 years, 8.05% is 0.2% annualized growth. Let's compare to the S&P 500 index. From Jan 1979 to Dec 2019, the S&P has returned 746% (2,401% including dividend reinvestment) -- both figures adjusted for inflation (as is the FRED data). Annualized…

Another well-regarded source is the congressional budget office. The data linked below from 2014 is even more optimistic than my previous data because it uses household income instead of individual income. (because the distribution of individual incomes is skewed and growing even more skewed, median household incomes grow faster than individual incomes). The CBO data shows 26.1% growth in the incomes of middle quinti…

Is that just because more people are opting to live with their parents because they can't afford their own rent?

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#257

Post by mamon »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #205
fhood wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, but the whole issue is how we are running out of mineral/natural/ecological resources. And at an exponential speed.

Progress also means that we can use resources more efficiently, e.g. by recycling them. By limiting progress (and growth) you're also making resource use less eficient, so that we'll run out of them faster.

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#258

Post by newnewpdro »

vkou wrote: post #233
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…

> Growth is an international arms race. How do you reconcile the existence of MAD with this? Proponents of MAD insist that once attained, it makes military conflicts unnecessary - and this justifies the expense and the risk of the world walking a tightrope above nuclear Armageddon. If I'm not mistaken, either they, or you are wrong about this point.

Permanently achieved MAD is a myth.

The US has been developing its defenses, becoming increasingly capable of intercepting the delivery systems responsible for MAD. Its enemies are responding by developing more nuclear warheads delivered by more and faster missiles.

This will keep going back and forth, it must if the balance is to be preserved. The moment one side gets a substantial advantage over everyone else, MAD is no longer assured.

If you just build some nuclear weapons and consider yourself in the MAD club because you've checked the "nuclear" box, then cease all relevant R&D and your nation goes permanently out to lunch afterwards, it's not going to go well in the long run unless every other nation does the same (they won't).

Re: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

#259

Post by boring_twenties »

ryanmercer wrote: post #166
luckylion wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An example would be to remove the $50b per year water subsidies for the beef industry, and make consumers pay for the approximately 4000 gallons of water required to produce a pound of meat in the grocery store. Isn't that a fancy way of saying "eating meat should be a privilege for the wealthy"? The point of mass production isn't just that it's produced in masses, it's also about being affordable by the masses. Al…

>Isn't that a fancy way of saying "eating meat should be a privilege for the wealthy"? It absolutely should. https://newrepublic.com/article/120915/american-west-drought... - 90% of of Nevada's cropland is used for hay, 90% of Montana's, 60% of Utah's - 50% of California's water usage goes to livestock feed Etc etc. This is unsustainable, period. This is causing groundwater depletion (and has for decades) that will t…

> - 90% of of Nevada's cropland is used for hay, 90% of Montana's, 60% of Utah's

Is the soil in Nevada, Montana or Utah particularly suitable for growing anything other than hay?

Post reply on HN