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

151–160 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#151

Post by satyrnein »

cudgy wrote: post #99
satyrnein wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting immigrants who desperately want to come is nothing like taking resources by force.

True, but the parent post did not mention use of force. We cannot deny that there is a brain drain in many third world countries that desperately need well trained workers that is accelerated by acceptance of immigrants into developed nations like the US. Who’s going to lead these countries into better governance and economic improvement if all the talent is incentivized to leave their home countries for greener past…

Immigration was compared to "colonial appropriation" which doesn't exactly sound voluntary.

In contrast, it would be a terrible thing to forcibly lock people into their birth countries to stop brain drain.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#152

Post by WalterBright »

ako wrote: post #137
WalterBright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market health care is far cheaper than socialized health care.

Proof?

The American health care system before the 1960s. And also:

"How American Health Care Killed My Father"

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...

compares the free market section of the health care system with the rest of it.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#153

Post by WalterBright »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #130
WalterBright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market health care is far cheaper than socialized health care.

I'm not sure there's an advanced "free market" bealthcare system in the world we can use to even make that comparison.

The free market produces goods and services at less cost for everything else, why would health care be any different?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#154

Post by plankers »

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…

I'll probably be downvoted because this is stupid but I was wondering the other day whether Japan will be the first country to start factory breeding of humans, Brave New World style. If there was ever a candidate for it, Japan is certainly it.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#155

Post by RandomLensman »

sprucevoid wrote: post #149
RandomLensman wrote: post #106

So why now? Would it have been better to stop growing in Roman or medial times, for example? Or stop only in a 100 years? Degrowth seems to me like a vision of the future that assumes that humans should remain slaves of their environment and not become masters of it. If humans are to become the dominant species in the universe, degrowth will not help.

> So why now? From my reading of degrowth works the answer is: because now the global resource use induced by growth have accumulated enourmous negative externality costs, costs that will nedlessly increase further unless counteracted by degrowth policy. Food shortages, deadly heatwaves, property destruction. Direct dire costs to human health and welfare and rippling secondary effects. For example how would a scenari…

Fair enough on the intermediate step possibility. However, it is often sold more like a return to simpler lifestyles for forever - or maybe the proponents I encountered just happen to lean that way.

As far as dire scenarios are concerned, I struggle with them as usually the realities play out differently. Arguably in part because people do consider such scenarios.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#157

Post by pbourke »

oska wrote: post #111
imgabe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect that you wouldn’t react as strongly to a smug assertion that the USA is a basket case.

It’s okay to admit that the US has done immigration well. It has. There are a great many things that Japan does better than the US. We can discuss them without taking umbrage.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#158

Post by plankers »

smcf wrote: post #129
roflyear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see this stated often, but it doesn't seem right to me. Almost any professional with a job offer from a Japanese company can get a work visa. Incoming software developers (and other in-demand workers) can probably rack up enough points to qualify as an HSFP/高度人材 and get permanent residence after 5 years. With enough points you can get it in one . Meanwhile in the US, H1B issuance is not only more onerous but only a…

is it expected of skilled immigrants to be able to speak Japanese? getting people to learn the global lingua franca is a much easier sell. reading and writing Japanese at a fluent level takes quite a while and oodles of memorization.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#159

Post by nicbou »

brutusborn wrote: post #96
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…

What would "economics that doesn't assume you can always go around the world taking other nations resources" look like? You seem to be criticizing a current solution to a problem without suggesting an alternative solution. Edit since I'm getting downvotes: I'll take a stab and hopefully someone will correct me. Do you mean a return to Mercantilism? If we can't have immigration because that is 'taking another nations…

There is no obligation to supply an alternative solution. Engineering taught me to define a problem without thinking of a solution, because it restricts your thinking.

That the person above didn’t bring a solution does not invalidate their statement. Immigration is only a solution for those getting the immigrants. It’s not so nice for the countries that raise and educate them without any ROI.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#160

Post by nicbou »

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

That’s just arguing in bad faith.

No one is denying that it’s your right to move around. It doesn’t make it any less of a bad deal for your home country. They invested in you and you left. Do this a few million times and you feel the effect.

No one is blaming you. The person above just pointed out that immigration isn’t a free lunch.

Post reply on HN