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

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#181

Post by sokoloff »

coldtea wrote: post #175
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.

> There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. Because the US was created as a ragtag coalition of immigrants from all kinds of countries. Their whole shtick is based on being a melting pot. Japan is a much more ethnically homogenous nation. Besides, this coming of immigrants didn't work so well for the natives in the US (the native Ame…

In what sense does the US “have a huge majority of blacks in jail”? This initially seemed hyperbolic and when I looked quickly at the numbers, it still seems hyperbolic.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#182

Post by krageon »

coldtea wrote: post #173
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…

> this has translated into Is that a necessary result, or just a matter of how the economy was organized and money distributed? In other words, does politics and culture come into play in the result?

These are moderately interesting questions, but without some actual insight (preferably informed) it just sounds like you're being contrarian for no reason.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#183

Post by icelancer »

coldtea wrote: post #175
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.

> There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. Because the US was created as a ragtag coalition of immigrants from all kinds of countries. Their whole shtick is based on being a melting pot. Japan is a much more ethnically homogenous nation. Besides, this coming of immigrants didn't work so well for the natives in the US (the native Ame…

> Besides, this coming of immigrants didn't work so well for the natives in the US (the native Americans that is).

It didn't for the natives of the islands they call Nippon, either.

> They want to maintain their way of life, and that's up to them.

So did the Ainu.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#184

Post by fulafel »

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…

Where does the 1 worker per 4 retirees come from?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#185

Post by nostromo »

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.

Increasing immigration is a dead end. Birth rates are declining almost everywhere.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#186

Post by jacquesm »

lokimedes wrote: post #180
jacquesm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pensioners, children and other unemployed must be protected by laws instead of direct political influence. Of course then nothing stops those that have the vote because they work to disenfranchise those pensioners and other unemployed (the children will be theirs as well so are likely going to be protected). Laws are indirectly made by those who vote!

Indeed, but I see the self-interest element in our democratic systems, showing its nasty face, now we have demographics that are bisecting on what is in the socity's future interest.

I don't see why/how disenfranchising a large chunk of people that have contributed to society would improve this. After all you'd be telling the people that are working hard to keep things afloat that if they succeed that they will lose the vote too unless they continue to work forever. The net effect will be that the social safety net and pension schemes will be ultimately cancelled because only those that work get to vote.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#187

Post by krageon »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
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…

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

How would you know? We have examples of good socialised health care and terrible everything else.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#188

Post by mcjiggerlog »

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…

> Increased energy usage is not necessarily necessary for increased economic growth

I disagree with this - economic growth has almost always perfectly aligned with increased energy use, however this is not a bad thing.

The history of the human race has been about moving from less dense sources of energy to higher dense ones. From wood, to charcoal, to coal, to oil, to gas, to nuclear fission, to nuclear fusion. Abundance of energy is an absolute must for economic growth.

The good news is that what we have started to decouple our impact on the environment and economic growth.

I would also go as far as saying that economic growth is a necessity for us to combat climate change. The development of advanced technology like fusion, better desalination, higher density and more efficient farming, will all help reduce our impact on the planet.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#190

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Just apply a carbon tax.

If you admit that a carbon tax would make us both richer and greener, then you're welcome to argue that on top of that we could do more.

If you can't admit that clearly, then it's just more climate denial: oh it's too expensive to fix, we have to keep giving money to Russia, because insulation and heat pumps are a hoax.

Post reply on HN