Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Degrowth

lrb.co.uk

301–310 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A year ago, not in some distant past. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fertiliser-ban-d... https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-la... As the economic crisis was already in process --- it's been developing since 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%93present_Sri_Lanka...

After the fertilizer ban was implemented, then "Production of tea — Sri Lanka’s main cash crop — fell by 18% in a year. Production of rice — the main food crop — fell by even more" [1] So you're saying this did not contribute to the food shortage (a drop in domestic production of rice)? Or you're saying this drop in production would've happened irrespective of the fertilizer ban? 1 https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/w…

That's not the point I'm addressing.

asabjorn's claim was that ag productivity was directly sabotaged.

That is a highly unlikely reading of a situation I see as:

1. Government which supported fertilizer imports through direct government spending and via reserve foreign currency holdings was unable to support either end of this policy: it had no capacity for funding imports and had rapidly diminishing foreign currency reserves.

2. Amongst other measures taken, fertiliser and pesticide imports were reduced. Because of financial necessity, not as some "degrowth is good" initiative.

3. Resulting ground truth was that ag productivity collapsed, as you note.

Again, the driver was not "let's de-grow the economy", but "we can't afford what we had". In the context of other comments I've made on this thread, what Sri Lanka are experiencing might better be interpreted as an unplanned collapse rather than a longer-term, planned, and engineered de-growth. Sri Lanka's fertiliser ban itself was a consequence, not a driver, of unplanned collapse.

The usual poster-child of the alternative viewpoint might be Cuba. That country also saw a dramatic reduction in foreign support when its patron state the Soviet Union itself collapsed. There was a dramatic and difficult period of adjustment, but the result has been a stable and sufficient existence, if not one at notional OECD / major industrialised nation levels of wealth and income.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sri Lanka's various crises are not a result of degrowth policies, but because the country simply has no money to pay for imports . Including of fertilisers. The arrow of causality is fiscal collapse -> agricultural collapse. It's possible to look at historical crop yields worldwide, including in advanced / wealthy nations, and see where economic recession or high energy (especially natural gas, the primary feedstock…

One-third of Sri Lanka’s farm lands were dormant in 2021 due to the fertilizer ban. Over 90% of Sri Lanka’s farmers had used chemical fertilizers before they were banned. After they were banned, an astonishing 85% experienced crop losses. The numbers are shocking. After the fertilizer ban, rice production fell 20% and prices skyrocketed 50 percent in just six months. Sri Lanka had to import $450 million worth of rice…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32431039

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#303

degrowth is unavoidable: population will stop growing soon and natural resources cannot be exploited at the same rate as they are now. So we'd better prepare for a nice and managed post-growth world or we'll face the worst consequences of it.

Collapse now and avoid the rush. :)

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Imagine there is a leech stuck on your body sucking blood. You will now have to eat more to replenish the blood. Here is the kicker though, the leech gets bigger as it sucks out more blood out of your body and therefore it will start draining more blood from your body. You go to your doctor and he says take these pills they will make your body grow bigger. As the leech gets bigger you must get bigger which means you…

Is the leech the welfare system?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#305
post #207
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Them owning real estate keeps the real estate off the market, thereby increasing the price for everyone else.

Which can be easily resolved by taking building regulations from NIMBYs and giving them to YIMBYs and letting people build build more or less anything anywhere. 1000 billionaires having 5000 houses have no effect in comparison with hundreds of thousands of houses not built because of regulations.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because health is quite literally priceless.

So is food. But every country that tried socialist food production reaped famine.

Yes, but food isn't magic and medicine to most people is.

Here take this pill and boom life extension is on a different level than this is my carrot and even though I have 100's you can't have any.

The first will lead to bankruptcy the second to riots.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#307

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.

Why should we want to become the "dominant species in the universe" and not be statisfied with a good life within our means?

People are not hobbits. Or maybe some are, but others are not and they shouldn't be forced to live like ones.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is food. But every country that tried socialist food production reaped famine.

Yes, but food isn't magic and medicine to most people is. Here take this pill and boom life extension is on a different level than this is my carrot and even though I have 100's you can't have any. The first will lead to bankruptcy the second to riots.

> Yes, but food isn't magic and medicine to most people is.

The most bizarre argument I've encountered yet.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#309
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unregulated free market mostly produces goods and services at less cost for the producer, which huge external costs to everything else.

Really? Why then are communist countries the most polluted?

Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to avoid having to form coherent arguments by saying “what about communism” to anyone who replies to you.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Why then are communist countries the most polluted?

Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to avoid having to form coherent arguments by saying “what about communism” to anyone who replies to you.

If the claim is "huge external costs", since those are not quantified, then it's fair to ask "compared to what".

So I compared it to communism.

If you have something else to compare it to, feel free.

Post reply on HN