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

Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 299 posts

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#171

Post by caramelcustard »

mongol wrote: post #9

Is not growth inevitable? I hear criticisms of it but is it not what happens automatically when there is competition for resources? I can't really see what the alternative would be. I mean, ideally if you could just agree with everyone in the entire world that no one should strive for something better, we could stay where we are, but reaching such agreement seems impossible. And let's say instead we change direction…

"...we change direction to reshape society, to become more ecological, more sustainable etc." This is literally what the criticized growth-focused system is doing: from recycling waste into new products to carbon-capture technology, sustainable polymers and much more, made and done with private equity.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#172

Post by redavni »

dionidium wrote: post #133
chobeat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under capitalism, this simply doesn't happen. More efficiency due to automation or other factors always result in constant hours worked, resources exploited more efficiently, humans squeezed harder and less worker's autonomy. Any reduction in the work time was won by unions and as soon as they were destroyed, we got stuck with the 40 hours workweek. Your narrative worked maybe one century ago: now the world is on fuc…

This pretty clearly isn't true. You could simply work fewer hours and live a 1920s lifestyle, if that's what you want. You won't have good healthcare (neither did people in 1920), you probably won't go to college (just like most people in 1920), you won't be able to buy lots of fancy and complicated consumer goods (exactly like people in 1920), you won't own a laptop (just like every single human being in 1920), or l…

This is not even close to reality in the US. Zoning laws and various regulations mean that attempting to live like it is 1920 will eventually get you locked up in jail and your property condemned after you are fined to death. Assuming you can afford any property as our government has allowed corporate and foreign interests as well as excessive immigration to inflate property well past the ability of the average 1920 man to afford.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#173

Post by revscat »

neojebfkekeej wrote: post #40
mongol wrote: post #9

Is not growth inevitable? I hear criticisms of it but is it not what happens automatically when there is competition for resources? I can't really see what the alternative would be. I mean, ideally if you could just agree with everyone in the entire world that no one should strive for something better, we could stay where we are, but reaching such agreement seems impossible. And let's say instead we change direction…

It’s not that growth is inherently bad. It’s that we’ve turned a blind eye to the costs incurred both on an individual level and a planetary level to sustain that growth.

History is replete with fallen civilizations, lost civilizations, and civilizations we barely know exist. There are likely many who rose and fell and who we are wholly unaware of.

So no, growth is not inevitable, especially if you turn the livable atmosphere unlivable.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#174

Post by djenendik »

uhuruity wrote: post #82

As someone with a graduate degree in economics: often when people think about 'growth' in a negative light, they're imagining an ever increasing use of resources to produce more output. But the desirable type of growth (in the economic discipline) is generally Total Factor Productivity growth: (very) roughly speaking, being able to produce more output with the same input. This is basically akin to technological progr…

Are you aware of any physical process that operates in that way?

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#175

Post by bnralt »

strongpigeon wrote: post #63

What Daly is saying really is more that growth as currently measured (i.e. GDP growth) isn't a good metric and is one that can't go on forever. He's not (in his own word) agains't growth of wealth, but he's rather asking whether GDP growth is the metric to optimize for. Saying we're bound by the laws of thermodynamics is a bit silly in my opinion. It's almost like saying we shouldn't invest in solar panels as the sun…

I don't know, I read the interview and it honestly wasn't clear what he was saying. He never mentions any particular policy that should be enacted (other than tariffs against other countries that don't follow our lead), and the interviewer doesn't seem interested, opting instead to ask questions about cosmology. It's a bizarre interview. His issue seems to be mostly with overconsumption of resources. But instead of creating a sustainable economy that can achieve growth through other areas (increased efficiency, increased use of renewable resources), he instead comes out against any growth and advocates a steady-state economy. But again, no specifics, just vague generalities and digressions into cosmology (arguing that economics should take into account religious questions).

I was honestly shocked by the low quality of the interview. If this was presented as an exchange between teenagers on Reddit, I would have believed it.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#176

Post by porcoda »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #115
moffkalast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there is another option: finding a balance and keeping it. There's nothing wrong with keeping a replacement level population and producing enough goods for everyone, instead of trying to achieve some kind of maximum output while destroying the landscape around as quickly as possible. Doesn't mean improvements can't be made to quality of life despite that.

In nature, nothing is constant for very long.

Many things reach equilibrium states that can persist for quite a while. Equilibrium states are not constant.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#177

Post by chobeat »

dionidium wrote: post #133
chobeat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under capitalism, this simply doesn't happen. More efficiency due to automation or other factors always result in constant hours worked, resources exploited more efficiently, humans squeezed harder and less worker's autonomy. Any reduction in the work time was won by unions and as soon as they were destroyed, we got stuck with the 40 hours workweek. Your narrative worked maybe one century ago: now the world is on fuc…

This pretty clearly isn't true. You could simply work fewer hours and live a 1920s lifestyle, if that's what you want. You won't have good healthcare (neither did people in 1920), you probably won't go to college (just like most people in 1920), you won't be able to buy lots of fancy and complicated consumer goods (exactly like people in 1920), you won't own a laptop (just like every single human being in 1920), or l…

nah, you would end up in jail and most of the supply chain that was there for what you call a "1920's lifestyle" is not there anymore. We criticize this way of living because we are stuck in it.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#178

Post by spoonjim »

dionidium wrote: post #133
chobeat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under capitalism, this simply doesn't happen. More efficiency due to automation or other factors always result in constant hours worked, resources exploited more efficiently, humans squeezed harder and less worker's autonomy. Any reduction in the work time was won by unions and as soon as they were destroyed, we got stuck with the 40 hours workweek. Your narrative worked maybe one century ago: now the world is on fuc…

This pretty clearly isn't true. You could simply work fewer hours and live a 1920s lifestyle, if that's what you want. You won't have good healthcare (neither did people in 1920), you probably won't go to college (just like most people in 1920), you won't be able to buy lots of fancy and complicated consumer goods (exactly like people in 1920), you won't own a laptop (just like every single human being in 1920), or l…

You're missing an important part of the equation. That 1920s lifestyle includes lower population density outside of the big cities, food that is organic by default, etc etc. You can't just look at the downsides.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#179

Post by chobeat »

pdonis wrote: post #166
uhuruity wrote: post #82

As someone with a graduate degree in economics: often when people think about 'growth' in a negative light, they're imagining an ever increasing use of resources to produce more output. But the desirable type of growth (in the economic discipline) is generally Total Factor Productivity growth: (very) roughly speaking, being able to produce more output with the same input. This is basically akin to technological progr…

> (very) roughly speaking, being able to produce more output with the same input It's not just physical output, though. Ultimately the purpose of all of this economic activity is to meet human needs or wants. But outside of basic subsistence, most human needs and wants can be highly variable in how much physical output can satisfy them. For example, humans have a need/want for movies and music. It used to require a l…

The current production system is driven by the need for growth. What you're describing was true maybe until a century ago, until the 1929 crisis. After that it was clear that demand had to be artificially stimulated to meet the needs of the production side. First it was war, then mass consumerism. Desires are not natural, they are induced and in the same way they are induced (socially, culturally, politically), they can be removed, usually with a higher level of happiness for the people involved.

Re: Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end

#180

Post by bko »

throw8383833jj wrote: post #139
bko wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elite is a loosely formed group of individuals that has a lot of influence on culture and government. There's concentration everywhere you look. For instance there's 6 companies that control almost all of media [0]. There are 10 companies that own nearly all global food products [1]. Look at ETFs and you'll see they own the majority of all stocks (on behalf of others), but they exert a lot of influence on corporate g…

but elite's aren't really the ones calling the shots. Everytime I investigate some political issue, no matter how disgusting or crazy the idea (housing issues, transportation, prop 13, zoning/building regulations, etc, etc), you'll find huge swaths of the voting population that agree with what's going on. Politicians are mainly just responding to voter demand, as it turns out. If anything, the issue is the voting mas…

I don't know. There are some huge disconnects between what you see in media and popular opinion. Consider newspaper endorsements of the former guy. There was 10. One was the National Enquirer, another was owned by his son in law, and another is the official newspaper of the KKK. This was a candidate that ended up winning the election (although lost popular vote, but not by that much). There's a big disconnect if 99% of publications are on one side while the country is split 50-50.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_pres...

Post reply on HN