Live data from Hacker News

Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

nytimes.com

71–80 of 299 posts

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#71
Can someone explain to me why we can't keep growing until the death of the sun? Growth doesn't mean more materials or natural resources necessarily, a microprocessor uses some of the cheapest and most abundant materials and uses less of them now than before. Why might we not continue to find new designs and discoveries that allow us to make ever more efficient and complex objexts, that in turn are worth continually more than what we have now?

Look at software, most of it all uses the same commodity hardware to run but it gets more powerful and complex every year. But by rearranging the same bits of hardware we can get a basic calculator or matlab. The productivity difference between the two is massive and becomes more so every year. Can't we always have new circuits, new software, new FPGAs, new rocket designs, new and better algorithms or even hardcoded solutions calculated once and distributed, that don't use more resources but by being more complex increase productivity?

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#72
post #7

Decent Ultimate End would be: defense spending world wide=0

If growth becomes a zero sum game as “Economists” like this one would like, you better hope you live in country with a defense budget>0

I don't understand why you are down voted, you're absolutely right. if growth grinds to a halt and people still want that growth at all cost they will use the same old ways they achieved it before. and even if 90 out of 100 don't want to the 10/100 will force their hand.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#73
After this topic gained my attention for the umpteenth time, I have come to believe that the reason that growth remains a very high priority in the face of all the costs is a truly unpleasant justification.

Consider the Soviet Union. During its early development the working day was progressively shortened, reaching seven hours by 1929 [1]. Certainly, many people would consider "working less" a nice alternative to endlessly pursuing growth. But then something funny happens. Adolf Hitler comes to power in Germany and the Soviet workday gets longer [2].

The reason that we pursue growth so doggedly is not because we have a collective wish to do so. It's because we are afraid that $Enemy is going to grow faster than we are, for various values of $Enemy. The solution cannot be merely political; it must be geopolitical.

1: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/churches-closed/churche...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I...

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#74

Honestly I think this is obvious to anyone who is not financially motivated to think otherwise. The biggest problem is the rich have created a system in which people's future (retirement) is basically linked to "the market" growing over their lifetime. And the hopes that if they get lucky enough with the market they can retire early (or at all). This system of course is built 100% on governments/employers not wanting…

The system is totally unsustainable... unless we're willing to have a society of debtors, noone is going to buy homes from the boomers. The majority of retirement the average middle class has is their home.

I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to “the system” but the extradorinaiy price increases in homes were caused by boomers printing an unprecedented amount of money for themselves and lowering interest rates.

If history repeats itself, real estate valuations should revert to a long term mean which would make homes somewhat more affordable. There are some early indications that this is happening.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly the only other currently implemented alternative is state funded pensions, which instead of the market rely on an ever expanding population of workers paying their taxes to fund it and is not exactly better. In countries where population growth levelled off it seems to have recently resulted in raising of the retirement age ever higher. It's basically a state run ponzi scheme. I frankly wish we had a tax free…

isn’t that a 401k? I wish they raised the limits.. it’s woefully inadequate after years of inflation.

The biggest difference being that typically the state assumes the underperformance risk for a pension, versus the individual for a 401k.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

recent graeber/wengrow research shows your understanding of human progress is way out of date

Care to elaborate?

I think they aim to say that ancients weren't dumb dullards. Which I don't think people are saying they were so. We're saying that to get where we are took as long as it took humanity to get where we are (Outside of some fabulous thinking that there existed "modern" historical societies that disappeared).

When Hobbes said life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short' he was referring to life outside of the outcast's society.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#78
post #24

The pandemic made it clear that elites are ok with mass death and debilitation. It may not be a conspiracy, but people in power simply don’t care. So the logical conclusion is that a lot of the most vulnerable people are going to perish, the hardier ones will hobble by in filthy conditions like what you see in old age homes today (but there will be a gun around if they wanna quickly end their misery). Structural chan…

Severe pandemics are actually really bad for elites, since large scale death increases the value of employees. See e.g. "The Great Leveler" by Scheidel.

Demographically did this happen with covid?

The lockdowns and staying home clearly affected the labor market, but deaths within the labor demographics were not that high.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#79

Honestly I think this is obvious to anyone who is not financially motivated to think otherwise. The biggest problem is the rich have created a system in which people's future (retirement) is basically linked to "the market" growing over their lifetime. And the hopes that if they get lucky enough with the market they can retire early (or at all). This system of course is built 100% on governments/employers not wanting…

> governments/employers not wanting to guarantee financial security of elders and offload the risk to the individual

One can argue for a well-fare state that provides all guarantees one wants.

But you're flipping the issue here. First, you have a risk of not aging. But most people are inevitably going to age and retire. This risk is inherent to the individual. Now we can offload that risk to the government (please, it's not the other way around), but it's going to have costs. And I think offloading it to the government is even riskier, because governments make stupid decisions and are subject to massive corruption.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

recent graeber/wengrow research shows your understanding of human progress is way out of date

Care to elaborate?

I haven't really read it to know the relevance, but I think this is the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber...
Post reply on HN