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

11–20 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#11

Post by mulmen »

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 seems to conflate the ideas of growth and value. Labor creates some growth but is mostly value. Value is the reallocation of existing wealth. Growth is the creation of new wealth. Both happen when we do (productive) work. Capital needs to get comfortable with the idea that they must "spend money to make money".

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#12

Post by pessimizer »

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 health care is far cheaper than an ad hoc privatized patchwork.

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

edit: I'd trade most (though maybe not all) of the great meals I've ever had for the guarantee I'd never go hungry.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#13

Post by eCa »

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…

Can you dive a bit deeper into why you would like to see our global civilization collapse?

(I mean, if it doesn’t it’s not for lack of us trying. I just don’t see it as something to look forward to.)

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#14

Post by nico »

On a slightly related note. I wonder what impact of volume pricing (ie. wholesale: cheap/unit, retail: expensive/unit) has in our society.

What would happen if this was flipped and pricing per unit was directly correlated with volume (ie. more volume, more expensive per unit)? Could it work?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#15

Post by dougmwne »

dredmorbius wrote: post #10

Among my thoughts as I read this, one which has recurred from time to time: it might be interesting to attempt some kind of reading club on HN in which an article or book is selected for future discussion. This piece runs about 10 pages printed, or roughly 5,000 words, which seems to challenge HN. And that's before considering that it's further discussing not one but four books, totalling over 1,000 pages. I'd be qui…

Take it up with Dang. Could be a monthly post like the hiring posts. Probably rig up a poll for voting on next month’s book. You could make your own posts, but they would never get traction without some HN leadership blessings.

HN used to have book recommendation posts pretty often, but maybe we’ve gotten less literary over time. I’ve read about a dozen books that were recommended here and they were all awesome.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#16

Post by wmf »

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.

Usually the degrowth people also advocate for massive redistribution so that everyone would be equally poor. I doubt that's politically possible in most of the world so the alternative would be feudal degrowth which, as you said, is evil.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#17

Post by newsclues »

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…

And yet the upper classes aren’t exactly leading the way.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#18

Post by dredmorbius »

dougmwne wrote: post #15
dredmorbius wrote: post #10

Among my thoughts as I read this, one which has recurred from time to time: it might be interesting to attempt some kind of reading club on HN in which an article or book is selected for future discussion. This piece runs about 10 pages printed, or roughly 5,000 words, which seems to challenge HN. And that's before considering that it's further discussing not one but four books, totalling over 1,000 pages. I'd be qui…

Take it up with Dang. Could be a monthly post like the hiring posts. Probably rig up a poll for voting on next month’s book. You could make your own posts, but they would never get traction without some HN leadership blessings. HN used to have book recommendation posts pretty often, but maybe we’ve gotten less literary over time. I’ve read about a dozen books that were recommended here and they were all awesome.

And of course I have (linking this thread).

Thought I'd have that discussion here as well, though.

The earlier thread addresses a number of thoughts / concerns / possibilities.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#19

Post by dredmorbius »

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 heritage:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-steady-stater-7232427...

A more useful framing of the question might be to assume that degrowth is a given, whether you believe this or not, and proceed from there with a discussion of concerns.

The obvious advantage of growth over degrowth, or even steady-state economics, is that a larger pie allows portion sizes to increase (at least in theory --- actual history shows that both growth and absolute shrinkage have occurred, see particularly the introduction to Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms which notes that the richest and poorest people who've ever lived are alive now), without reallocation.

But wealth and livelihood allocation are social functions and constructs. A philosophy of commmon weal rather than personal gain might address this. It can be found in unexpected places, including Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, several times.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#20

Post by mjfl »

This is all very abstract, so you can't really see the stupidity behind it. You can say "economic growth is out of control, we need to reduce GDP by 50% and get comfortable with it" and many people will applaud. But if you say things like "We are growing too much food, we need to reduce the amount of food grown worldwide by 50%", people will realize the much more morbid consequences of your ignorant prescription - mass starvation by millions of people. Of course then you start talking about managed, equitable degrowth in just developed countries, but then you realize that a lot of the economic activity in developed countries plugs into farming in developing countries (natural gas for ammonia for fertilizer) and you realize you can't escape. And then maybe you realize you should have just sat on your couch and shut up, which is what most people with these sorts of opinions should do.
Post reply on HN