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

111–120 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#111

Post by oska »

imgabe wrote: post #110
oska wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one talks about it People talk about it all the time, especially on toxic forums filled with foreigners opining about Japan like r/japan. There are many reasons why immigration is not the silver bullet you think it is (some of which have been given by other replies). But the important thing is that Japan and the Japanese get to decide where to take their society and no one else . Telling the Japanese what they s…

I don't think anyone is under the impression that the country of Japan is obligated to do what some random Internet commenter thinks. People are allowed to have opinions that something would be a good course of action or not. That's not paternalism.

The comment was phrased as trenchant criticism of the Japanese on a matter that is strictly their own business, calling them racist & xenophobic and contrasting them to the USA who 'do immigration well'.

Do this, be more like (supposedly virtuous) X and don't be Y & Z is clear paternalism and, in my opinion, highly arrogant paternalism to boot.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#112

Post by imgabe »

imtringued wrote: post #72
api wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich don’t take much. The vast majority of their wealth is paper. A billionaire who jet sets around and has five homes and a staff might at most consume the resources of a few hundred middle class Americans. You might approach the footprint of a medium sized town if you built your own orbital lair and lived like a cyberpunk oligarch in space. Maybe. Of course for some resources there is little difference at all.…

This is why you should ensure that the medium of exchange does not get stuck with people who don't need it. They block the economy for everyone else, preventing us from helping ourselves.

It is not stuck. The billionaires are not hoarding all the dollars. They have stock in their companies, which is worth varying amounts of dollars. Them owning stock does not deprive you of any dollars.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#113

Post by pessimizer »

cudgy wrote: post #100
juve1996 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

25k saved (the difference in price between the cars) is more than most people have in savings. It would at least delay the fall of the guillotine long enough to find another job.

Or it can be eaten up by one emergency room trip and three days of intensive care.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#114

Post by pessimizer »

honkkong420 wrote: post #104
juve1996 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strongly disagree, being able to accumulate enough money to cover the bumps of life can be the difference between stringing along a middle class existence and everything working out and going broke.

$25K is peanuts if anything even mildly serious happens.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#115

Post by pessimizer »

zmgsabst wrote: post #95
pessimizer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in a different sense, because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right. The rights you have were decided upon by people who aren't you, and imposed on you. I'm theoretically sympathetic to your wanting to opt out of public services, but it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire.

> the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right You just said the right to not be a slave is a made-up right. > it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire So don’t? — but you’re losing me at the point you go from “I save money by not tracking exceptions” to “I have the right to make you participate because I want your money”.

If you consider obeying the law equivalent to slavery, then I absolutely am saying that. The law is other people's choices imposed upon you.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#116

Post by TeeMassive »

legolas2412 wrote: post #107
neilwilson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration is just colonial appropriation. It's the solution proposed by city dwellers who think we should live 50 deep in a square mile of massive cities - generally an upper middle class who seem to believe they should have constant access to cheap servants they don't have to personally house and look after. Japan already has massive cities. It doesn't work. We need economics that doesn't assume you can always go…

> including the people they have schooled and trained to provide for their own population. Oh, I didn't realize I was a slave to a country. And the act of immigration which I willfully do, and the host country is pretty much hostile about, is "stealing" me. If Western countries wanted to steal me, they should not have put up such roadblocks to immigration

Brain drain is a real phenomenon and a real problem. Your personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#117

Post by TeeMassive »

pessimizer wrote: post #12
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.

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…

> The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious.

That's not for you to decide. The market can and does apply proper growth slowing pressure by itself.

> Everybody in the world can't have a suburban lawn.

That's just a different version of "think of the poor who can't eat". Countries and cultures aren't the same. Suburbia only exists due to improper distribution of business centers and housing bubbles. Overpopulated mega-cities don't have to exist with proper distribution of work and living space. Majority of countries are uninhabited and undeveloped.

> What the middle-class (and the poor) don't have is security.

Most developed countries are have welfare. Our poor live better and longer than kings from a century ago.

> 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.

Firing is necessary to keep efficiency and competition.

> Supplying security to people is actually cheaper that what we do now, just as socialized health care is far cheaper than an ad hoc privatized patchwork.

Who will "supply security"? People who work and who are getting paid so they buy stuff. Who pays and produce their stuff? Other people who need to work. The demand for "security" will only keep increasing due to comfort. There's a reason Bill Clinton was elected on a platform to reform the welfare system.

> We don't need more growth, we need more humanity.

And flowers and unicorns too.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#118

Post by worik »

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.

>Both need growth in order to improve their conditions, and their place in society exists only because they can produce growth.

Why is that?

It is OK to take from the very rich to help the very poor.

All the stories I have read say that the general wealth is increasing but distribution getting more skewed.

So I do not think endless growth is the answer to maintaining the middle class

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#119

Post by thematrixturtle »

TeeMassive wrote: post #116
legolas2412 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> including the people they have schooled and trained to provide for their own population. Oh, I didn't realize I was a slave to a country. And the act of immigration which I willfully do, and the host country is pretty much hostile about, is "stealing" me. If Western countries wanted to steal me, they should not have put up such roadblocks to immigration

Brain drain is a real phenomenon and a real problem. Your personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

It's a "problem" only if you assume nation-states own the brains of their citizens, and have the right to dictate that they stay within their borders.

There's a lot of brains draining from Russia right now due to Putin's policies. Should we deport them all back to Russia?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#120

Post by WalterBright »

TeeMassive wrote: post #116
legolas2412 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> including the people they have schooled and trained to provide for their own population. Oh, I didn't realize I was a slave to a country. And the act of immigration which I willfully do, and the host country is pretty much hostile about, is "stealing" me. If Western countries wanted to steal me, they should not have put up such roadblocks to immigration

Brain drain is a real phenomenon and a real problem. Your personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

If countries don't want a brain drain, perhaps they should adopt more of the policies of countries their brains are escaping to.
Post reply on HN