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

The Case for Degrowth

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#51

Post by thematrixturtle »

Japan is a living case study of degrowth: GDP has been essentially flat for the past 20 years. The scale below exaggerates small shifts, but it was $4968B in 2000 and $4937B in 2020.

https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp

On the ground, this has translated into flat or deflating prices (until very recently) and an increasing bifurcation of society into salarymen, with low but stable incomes anchored on jobs-almost-for-life, and part-timers on temporary contracts, with groups like single mothers living in poverty. Population is shrinking by close to 1M/year, the rural countryside is rapidly emptying out as young people flock into cities to chase opportunities, and the national pension scheme will sooner or later implode since it can't support 1 worker paying for 4 retirees forever. It's frankly depressing and there's no obvious way out.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#52

Post by smallerfish »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #29
Yoric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we do need food. But do we need it so highly processed? Do we really need video game consoles or Netflix? Do we need to change phone or car quite so often? I'm sure we all can find a number of things that we own and shouldn't really have bought. I'm not sure what it takes to degrow, but I'm pretty convinced that there's lots of fat in our consumerist lives that could be trimmed away even without changing our da…

Arguing for greater efficiency or arguing against luxury is so, so different from arguing for degrowth. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that degrowth is fundamentally misanthropic. And the core of the misanthropic philosophy is the belief that mankind and nature are two different things. We will likely die for the lack of philosophy.

> Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that degrowth is fundamentally misanthropic. And the core of the misanthropic philosophy is the belief that mankind and nature are two different things.

I don't believe that one follows from the other. Humanity is part of nature. Humans are sentient, and groups of humans can decide that society and/or group systems should ideally behave in one way or another, e.g. that an economy can be organized in one way or another. Humans can also make models about the future, and make statistical predictions based upon current (sophisticated) understanding of how systems work. This sets humans apart from other organisms in nature which also operate un(or less)consciously in groups, such as ants, viruses, etc, and which have growth that is unchecked to the extent that resources permit.

Therefore, it doesn't follow that humans being part of nature implies that unchecked growth is inevitable; humanity recognizing that there are in fact finite resources on this planet which we're currently bound to, and attempting to tailor the systems which affect rate of growth to ensure sufficient runway with those resources, is a very pro-humanity thing to do. That is, some control of population and resource-usage with the goal of preventing resource and environmental exhaustion and subsequent mass calamity is a tradeoff that attempts to promote the longevity of reasonable living standards with the possible expense of some liberties and the possible reining in of some unthinking consumption patterns. That doesn't equate to misanthropy, any more than preventing a 3 year old from eating a fourth bowl of ice cream does.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#53

Post by [deleted] »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #51

Japan is a living case study of degrowth: GDP has been essentially flat for the past 20 years. The scale below exaggerates small shifts, but it was $4968B in 2000 and $4937B in 2020. https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp On the ground, this has translated into flat or deflating prices (until very recently) and an increasing bifurcation of society into salarymen, with low but stable incomes anchored on jobs-almost-fo…

[deleted]

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#54

Post by elgenie »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #51

Japan is a living case study of degrowth: GDP has been essentially flat for the past 20 years. The scale below exaggerates small shifts, but it was $4968B in 2000 and $4937B in 2020. https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp On the ground, this has translated into flat or deflating prices (until very recently) and an increasing bifurcation of society into salarymen, with low but stable incomes anchored on jobs-almost-fo…

Japan’s GDP per capita is similar to what it was in the mid-90s despite sizable per-worker productivity gains because their population is aging rapidly.

However, “no obvious way out” is incorrect. Increasing immigration (with citizenship) and supporting women having long term careers (as opposed to jobs-until-kids) are both quite obvious; they just involve societal changes that are, for now, unpalatable.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#55

Post by jay_kyburz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #21

Degrowth is a euphemism for recession. That's literally what it is: receding economic activity. Degrowth proponents are among the most counterproductive advocates of climate policy, and are a huge source of ammunition for a opponents that try to claim that climate action is just anti-capitalism in disguise. Increases energy usage is not necessarily necessary for increased economic growth. Higher efficiency and less e…

It's actually our response to Covid that really cemented the idea that we won't solve our environmental problems by asking people to consume less.

People weren't prepared to put on a mask to save their own lives, they are sure as hell not going to vote for a government with policies that result in them consuming less, just so that people of the future wont have to deal with climate change. It's too far away and somebody else's problem.

Degrowth will never willingly happen in a democratic country. In my view its a waste of time discussing.

As you said, we need to find solutions to our environment problems that will make people richer, more comfortable, with more stuff.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#56

Post by LewisVerstappen »

dredmorbius wrote: post #32
asabjorn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also doesn't seem to be wide awareness that the degrowth people are currently intentionally sabotaging farming output. Sri Lankas food crisis is due to a forced stop in artificial fertilizer use and growth of only organic crops, and there are likewise farmer protests in the Netherlands (5th largest food producer), Belgium, Germany etc due to the governments pushing this. Closer to home the "inflation reduction…

Sri Lanka's various crises are not a result of degrowth policies, but because the country simply has no money to pay for imports . Including of fertilisers. The arrow of causality is fiscal collapse -> agricultural collapse. It's possible to look at historical crop yields worldwide, including in advanced / wealthy nations, and see where economic recession or high energy (especially natural gas, the primary feedstock…

Sri Lanka banned the use and importation of chemical fertilizers before though.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#57

Post by mulmen »

bsedlm wrote: post #33
mulmen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to conflate the ideas of growth and value. Labor creates some growth but is mostly value. Value is the reallocation of existing wealth. Growth is the creation of new wealth. Both happen when we do (productive) work. Capital needs to get comfortable with the idea that they must "spend money to make money".

I'm not sure I follow... value is the realocation of wealth? hmm, surely to realocate wealth has some value, but what's the relation between wealth and value? also, what about rent? what does rent do to wealth? to growth? to value?

Yes, the reallocated wealth is itself previously captured growth. Value is created from wealth when it is reallocated but while it is held no value is created.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#58

Post by jay_kyburz »

nico wrote: post #14

On a slightly related note. I wonder what impact of volume pricing (ie. wholesale: cheap/unit, retail: expensive/unit) has in our society. What would happen if this was flipped and pricing per unit was directly correlated with volume (ie. more volume, more expensive per unit)? Could it work?

"society" doesn't decide if we should have volume pricing. The seller wants to sell more to the buyer, so they offer a discount.

"society" could, on the other hand, decide to impose taxes on individuals that consume more than their fair share.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#59

Post by imtringued »

Ah yes, compound interest, the magic that makes everything grow exponentially.

I do not believe the human mind can grasp exponential growth.

If compound interest is absolute then 3% interest over 2000 years is equivalent to colonizing every single planet, even the barren ones, in more than 50 trillion milkyways.

Even at the speed of light it will take 4 years to get to alpha centauri, you're not getting to the edge of the universe in 2000 years, the actually achievable interest rate must therefore be much lower than 3%, most likely closer to 0% than to 3%.

Before you argue that there will never be uninterrupted exponential growth, because of political instability and conflict, consider for a second that the inability to fulfill the endless exponential growth nonsense is the origin of the political instability and conflict.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#60

Post by imtringued »

impossiblefork wrote: post #6

The problem with ideas like this is that it takes the ladder away from middle class and the poor. Both need growth in order to improve their conditions, and their place in society exists only because they can produce growth. Without it the power of the wealthy over them would become a weight pressing down with such force that it would intolerable.

Isn't it odd that without the poor get poorer even though common sense tells you that a lack of growth shouldn't make you poorer?

Or think about it this way, when there is no growth left, you must actually get people to cooperate with each other and as far as I know we never learned how to do that.

Post reply on HN