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

61–70 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#61

Post by imtringued »

zmgsabst wrote: post #22
pessimizer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious. Everybody in the world can't have a suburban lawn. What the middle-class (and the poor) don't have is security . They live in a state of fear that the entire bottom will drop out of their lives if they get fired, or have a heart attack, or any of a million things. Supplying security to people is actually cheaper that what we do now, just as socialized hea…

> I'd trade most (though maybe not all) of the great meals I've ever had for the guarantee I'd never go hungry. I wouldn’t — and there’s been times I was quite hungry while homeless. Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me.

>Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me.

You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. If anything, one could argue that there is no such thing as agency with growth dependence.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#62

Post by api »

imtringued wrote: post #59

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 o…

No, growth can’t go forever, but how far can it go? Obviously your trillion galaxies is absurd, but there’s a lot of room between absurd scenarios and where we are now.

But ultimately that does just push back the question of how to deal with flattening of the curve. Even if we settled the whole solar system ala The Expanse, then what? Solar system scale Japanese style stagnation?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#63

Post by thematrixturtle »

elgenie wrote: post #54
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.

And they will remain unpalatable as long as pensioners currently benefiting from the status quo (generous pensions paid in full, cheap healthcare etc) retain an absolute voting majority, which they will continue to do for several decades.

Immigration is slowly being forced open by economic need, but it's all very hush-hush (Vietnamese brought in as "trainees" to harvest lettuce below minimum wage etc) and intentionally offers no path to naturalization.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#64

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

#65

Post by roflyear »

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…

There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. No one talks about it (wouldn't be surprised if I got downvoted for mentioning it) but Japan is mad racist. They do not like foreigners.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#66

Post by juve1996 »

nickff wrote: post #42
pessimizer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious. Everybody in the world can't have a suburban lawn. What the middle-class (and the poor) don't have is security . They live in a state of fear that the entire bottom will drop out of their lives if they get fired, or have a heart attack, or any of a million things. Supplying security to people is actually cheaper that what we do now, just as socialized hea…

People seem to be willing to trade some level of security for some level of luxury. This is why people take out the largest mortgage they possibly can given their income, and spend money they don't have on cars (which they will take a long time to pay off). These revealed preferences are hard to deny, and it would be quite presumptuous to impose a different trade-off on a plurality/majority of the populace.

What choice do people have? It doesn't make sense to trade anything for security because that security is non-existent anyway.

Losing your job & health benefits for much of the middle class would be a death sentence regardless if they bought a 35k car or a 10k beater.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#67

Post by imtringued »

dredmorbius wrote: post #19
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.

This observation begs the questions: Is this the only such ladder? And why is it that economic growth seems to be the only ladder recognised in the economic mainstream for poverty alleviation? The latter question is one that's addressed often in the writing and talks of Herman Daly, one example I've recently come across being a 2020 Thanksgiving edition of the CASSE podcast, which discusses Daly's work and academic h…

Imagine there is a leech stuck on your body sucking blood. You will now have to eat more to replenish the blood. Here is the kicker though, the leech gets bigger as it sucks out more blood out of your body and therefore it will start draining more blood from your body.

You go to your doctor and he says take these pills they will make your body grow bigger. As the leech gets bigger you must get bigger which means you must take more pills. If you stop taking the pills, the leech will outpace your body growth and your body will suffer from anemia despite having more blood in your body than the average healthy human.

Suddenly everyone gets a fetish for being as large as an possible, it is good for your health, nobody ever questions whether they should just get rid of the leech and get their body to a normal height.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#68

Post by flaque »

Here's a few cases against degrowth:

- https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...

- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-23/econom...

The TL;DR is "the idea that economic growth requires growth in resource use is false; rich countries have started to grow while using less and less of the planet’s most important resources."

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#69

Post by amanaplanacanal »

roflyear wrote: post #65
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…

There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. No one talks about it (wouldn't be surprised if I got downvoted for mentioning it) but Japan is mad racist. They do not like foreigners.

This would seem to be only a temporary local solution. Once world population stabilizes or starts shrinking, you can only increase population by exporting the problem to somebody else.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#70

Post by jay_kyburz »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #55
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 someb…

I should also add to this comment that I think every individual _should_ review their own consumption and debt, and I have a lot of respect for those that do minimize their footprint.

I also strongly support taxes and regulation that prevents people from consuming more than their fair share, or passing off the true cost of their consumption to others.

I only meant to say that government policies that ask people to consume less across the board will never fly.

Post reply on HN