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

211–220 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#211

Post by anm89 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #36
anm89 wrote: post #5

We are in the biggest global/sovereign debt crisis of the last 100 year, maybe more. The things that will cause an explosive collapse in this scenario is shrinking population and a global shrinking economy. Debt needs growth. It's like a mortgage on a house. It's a good deal if the house is increasing in value. It can quickly turn bad if the house is losing value. Personally, I'd prefer to see that collapse happen bu…

Debt is a social construct and ultimately a notional and notational reality, not a real one. Real wealth is not financial but physical --- "the annual produce and labour of the nation" in Adam Smith's formulation (and hence a flow rather than a stock as many commentators have noted). Debt and credit reflect claims on that wealth, but not the wealth itself. Disrupting the claim-making system does have profund effects…

>debt is a social construct

As opposed to what? A carbon based life form? A monster truck?

Yes literally every thing that humans interact with that isn't constructed of atoms is a social construct. Contracts, agreements, trades, transactions. Every single concept in finance and economics. This isn't a profound statement

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#212

Post by actually_a_dog »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #190

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.

I'd support a carbon tax that's pegged to the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in some way, and rises exponentially with a linear increase in concentration.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#213

Post by BlargMcLarg »

AstralStorm wrote: post #196
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…

Thing is, GDP is a lousy measure of growth. Japan is undergoing a contraction and fossilization of its social structure. Interestingly enough, the same is happening slowly in USA and UK, and then after a big space everywhere else. Note the anti-immigration and austerity rhetoric, where what is needed is a major social change, considering of some attempts to level the playing field and prevent the current corporate an…

The move to rural could be countered by spreading, modernizing and connecting smaller hubs. Companies don't want to spread, so people don't want to spread, so companies don't want to spread, repeat ad infinitum.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#214

Post by BlargMcLarg »

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.

Immigration to Japan pre-covid was about as strict as going to the US from EU. All countries restrict severely to skilled workers only. US has the bonus of not requiring a barely spoken language globally to integrate.

The US definitely isn't the shining example of "import whatever" people like to make it out to be. It just has the money and social structure to attract skilled workers far more easily.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#215

Post by actually_a_dog »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #188
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. Abund…

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

I fail to see how this is true in any meaningful sense.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#216

Post by winReInstall »

Why is there never honesty in this talks.

Even the degrowth in japan is subsidized with growth in other regions. Real degrowth is instability, is human nature going feral back to religous roots, make many copies, fight the outsiders unbelievers, recover make many copies.

Cycling this drain, decomplexifies societies, loosing the ability to supply bureaucracy, research and experiments.

Lots of countries worldwide partially circle or circled in this loop.

One can not fix a situation, one does not talk and observe objectively. This includes disabilitys of the species as a system constraint.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#217

Post by satyrnein »

nicbou wrote: post #203
satyrnein wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is, unless they have passed laws against emigration, like North Korea. (Of course, those laws would rightly be seen as totalitarian.)

You confuse "not committing human rights abuses" with "voluntary". Countries that are losing their best and brightest are not happy about it.

So clear up my confusion: what should we do about it? Are we supposed to commit their human rights abuses for them, by denying entry to their best and brightest?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#218

Post by selfhoster11 »

WalterBright wrote: post #152
ako wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, but... the 1960s were literally 60 years ago. The world looks very different, and so does healthcare. Is it really comparable?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#219

Post by thematrixturtle »

fulafel wrote: post #184
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?

Sorry, that number was pulled out of my ass, but the collapse is happening:

> In 1985, there were 7 working-age people for each dependent elderly person. By 2010, that number had dropped all the way to 2.8. Moreover, it is projected to fall even further: to 1.7 in 2035 and 1.3 in 2060.

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a01001/

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#220

Post by have_faith »

WalterBright wrote: post #153
DubiousPusher wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not an either-or situation. In the UK we have a socialised health care system with a private health care system available to those that want it. I guess it's a question of how much you care about the plight of people at the bottom of society and how much you see it as a sort of civic duty to increase their access to high quality health care regardless of their life outcomes (low income).

I'm lucky that I don't rely on our national health service for everything but I still gladly pay towards it's running so others can use it. Of all the things the government taxes me for directly or indirectly payments towards the national health care service ranks very low on the list of annoyances.

Post reply on HN