the environment and economic growth

[frogger]

So I'm not sure why you don't think society overall is attempting less consumption. I know there are different groups. Different generations and different geographical locations will act differently and from everything I'e seen those in areas economically growing and thriving you see a much better attitude.

 

I live in a red state where boroughs are starting to ban plastic bags. I see more bicycle commuters than ever. I'm invited to birthdays where people are asked to donate to charities rather than bring gifts. I just don't bother telling people it's to celebrate a birthday as my children just want to play. The younger generation in recent surveys want more dense housing, smaller condos in the heart of the city where they don't need a vehicle. Even nationwide the upcoming generation is less likely to own a car and Americans are below replacement level as far as birth rate. I don't know that is neccessarily good but it is a fact. My lifestyle and thought process is so very different from how I grew up. 

I don't disagree with global warming and all that but I do disagree that a growing economy is bad for the enviroment. People who are well off have time and energy and hope to attempt making a difference. When you are poor you often are just worried about getting through the day. Poverty is very bad for the environment. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by frogger

[SamanthaCarter]

I’ve been thinking about this report I heard on npr for the last week or so, and I think it dovetails nicely into this conversation. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/11/environmentalist-demographics-race-class/574468/

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

So I'm not sure why you don't think society overall is attempting less consumption. I know there are different groups. Different generations and different geographical locations will act differently and from everything I'e seen those in areas economically growing and thriving you see a much better attitude.

 

I live in a red state where boroughs are starting to ban plastic bags. I see more bicycle commuters than ever. I'm invited to birthdays where people are asked to donate to charities rather than bring gifts. I just don't bother telling people it's to celebrate a birthday as my children just want to play. The younger generation in recent surveys want more dense housing, smaller condos in the heart of the city where they don't need a vehicle. Even nationwide the upcoming generation is less likely to own a car and Americans are below replacement level as far as birth rate. I don't know that is neccessarily good but it is a fact. My lifestyle and thought process is so very different from how I grew up. 

I don't disagree with global warming and all that but I do disagree that a growing economy is bad for the enviroment. People who are well off have time and energy and hope to attempt making a difference. When you are poor you often are just worried about getting through the day. Poverty is very bad for the environment. 

 

So, yes, there are people who are doing thosethings with good motives. THis is really a little different though than the discussions that used to be common around what level of consumption was really sustainable.  A lot of that focused on the question of, realistically, what level of consumption can we have which would be enough for all without destroying the basis of our wealth, what sort of lifestyle.  Obviously there is no simple answer to that question as there are many variables, but it was I think an important thing to think about - it helped people conceptualize what kind of lifestyle was really a possibility.  

A lot of the changes we talk about now are really very minor - bags, LED lights and such - and I think part of it is that when you haven't any real sense of what a sustainable lifestyle would mean, how can you know that LED lights are really barely scratching the surface?  Or how can you know that while a certain problem might be solved technologically,  another just won't be?

THe other element though is that while all this is going on, we still see actual consumption patters going on apace.  People are still spending huge amounts on consumer goods.  Companies are still manufacturing need.  The fashion industry is still making more and more cheap crap.  Planned obsolesce in appliances and homes is the norm.  Companies like Apple purposfully role out new upgrades every year that require getting rid of old hardware.  Prepackaged single serving foods, industrial foods are big areas of growth.  Products for pets are a big area of growth.   Even the agriculture people hoped would be more sustainable, organic, has been taken over so it is not really different than conventional in many cases.

I am never sure what people really are thinking when they mean growing the economy, because often they seem to have an almost natural sense.  What it really means though is that we need to make and sell more and more, be it goods or services or whatever.  This has to happen even if the number of people remain the same.  But think about this for a moment - if we were at a place where everyone had enough to live a good life, why would that mean we needed more?  That would not be poverty, that would be everyone having enough to be secure that security would be environmentally sustainable.  In the system that says growth is necessary, that is not what is happening - we need more even then.  In fact, we keep needing more infinitely, even if everyone is living like the Hiltons, we would need to grow the economy.  THat need for growth is built into the system, without it, the system can't work.  

I think that demonstrates a basic logical problem - we do not "need" to keep growing production when everyone has enough.  And unless we are able to think in those terms, in terms of a stable amount of production, of how much people really do need to live a good life, we are never going to be able to tackle the question of what a sustainable economy would look like.  

I'd also say, in connection to this question of how much we need - it actually isn't that much.  There really isn't any evidence that personal wealth beyond what it required for fairly basic physical security makes people happier or more satisfied - consumer goods actually don't do much for quality of life.  This should make it easy - it means there really could be a lot of scope for reducing the things we use.  We produce enough stuff, worldwide, for everyone, we don't need to "grow" the economy overall.  The reason we can't stop has nothing to do with our real needs, its a complete artificiality.

 

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I’ve been thinking about this report I heard on npr for the last week or so, and I think it dovetails nicely into this conversation. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/11/environmentalist-demographics-race-class/574468/

 

THat's quite interesting.  

One year, I did some campaign work for the Green representative in my riding, mostly I was delivering lawn signs throughout the city on my side of the harbour.  I found it really interesting where the signs were going, it wasn't what I expected really - I had thought it would be mostly well off, more urban (and often white) areas. And there was some of that.  Mostly though it was actually working/lower middle class suburban neighbourhoods.  And the door knocking I did with the candidate was low income housing and the interactions were extremely positive compared to what I'd have expected from the general population.

[Ausmumof3]

23 hours ago, regentrude said:

... and yet Americans use 50 billion plastic water bottles each year. Obviously, people still have no clue about the environmental impact. recycling alone doesn't cut it

We’re getting a wake up call down in Aus. We’ve been shipping all our recycling to China who’ve now decided to stop taking it. 

[frogger]

Nm

Edited November 15, 2018 by frogger

[SKL]

I don't agree that everyone will keep wanting more and more "stuff" even after everyone has all they need.

But this has never been tested so far, as even in rich countries, there are still people who don't have all they need and want the means to change that.

What I do see observed is that people who are satiated with "stuff" switch their focus to consuming non-material things such as the arts, world travel, etc.  While these do consume some resources, the benefits arguably balance the costs.

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, frogger said:

 The younger generation in recent surveys want more dense housing, smaller condos in the heart of the city where they don't need a vehicle. Even nationwide the upcoming generation is less likely to own a car and Americans are below replacement level as far as birth rate.

I don't think that it's just the younger generations that want this. My husband and I are looking at building a house next year, we would not be able to "age in place" in our current home. The neighborhood we like is considered an "urban density" neighborhood. Around here, they seem to be trying to get away from houses with big lots. Part of that is because we are running out of space and people keep moving here, so putting more houses on less land makes sense from the builders point of view. But, for us, it's about having a house with a first floor bedroom, being able to walk to the grocery store and other nearby places. So, it isn't just the young people who want to live near the necessities, it's us old fogey's, too.

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I don't think that it's just the younger generations that want this. My husband and I are looking at building a house next year, we would not be able to "age in place" in our current home. The neighborhood we like is considered an "urban density" neighborhood. Around here, they seem to be trying to get away from houses with big lots. Part of that is because we are running out of space and people keep moving here, so putting more houses on less land makes sense from the builders point of view. But, for us, it's about having a house with a first floor bedroom, being able to walk to the grocery store and other nearby places. So, it isn't just the young people who want to live near the necessities, it's us old fogey's, too.

Yes, we are looking at moving into a small apartment too. 

[scholastica]

59 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't agree that everyone will keep wanting more and more "stuff" even after everyone has all they need.

But this has never been tested so far, as even in rich countries, there are still people who don't have all they need and want the means to change that.

What I do see observed is that people who are satiated with "stuff" switch their focus to consuming non-material things such as the arts, world travel, etc.  While these do consume some resources, the benefits arguably balance the costs.

Are you seriously going to argue that rich people consume less? Because massive multiple houses is what everybody "needs" right? Because that's how the people who have long ago had what they "need" live. They just acquire ever more gadgets and gizmos. Or a massive collection of expensive cars (Jay Leno anyone?). Sure they travel and attend arts events. But that's in addition to consuming all kinds of goods. Just look at the hundreds of pairs of shoes some people own. No-one, no-one needs hundreds of pairs of shoes, or expensive cars, or whatever. People don't stop consuming when their needs are met. They just move on to wants, lots and lots of wants.

Edited November 15, 2018 by scholastica

[frogger]

I think it isn't so much more stuff that I personally want but services. I do think people want convienance thus fast food and water bottles and demanding 2 day shipping for a solitary item where the truck has to drive to your specific house and deliver this one package. Instant gratification is something I hear about more than know first hand. We have no 2 day shipping. I also think paying for things like water would greatly change how people use them. It is amazing how little water you can use per day and live comfortably and healthy when you haul your own water. Of course, you could give waivers or whatever for a minimal amount for those who simply can't pay.

 

I also think people just need knowledge and lifestyle changes take time. I rented a house outside of Phoenix where the water is nasty. The first day my husband and I looked and found a water store where they fill 5 gallon containers. The owner called to see if everything was ok later that day and somehow the conversation turned to water and she was surprised that you could simple refill large containers over and over. I told her I'd leave the containers we bought there for her. They had just lived off case after case of bottled water all the years they lived there. Often simple solutions just need to get out there where people know about them.

You sound like you want to control people though and I've never seen that work well in history or in my personal life. I find you give people information, opportunities, and thoughtfulness and they often surprise you with change. 

[barnwife]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

we need more because stuff gets consumed. consumed stuff that is a need gets replaced.  

I agree that there are a lot of disposable goods that could be done without, were people persuaded to give up some convenience. I am not seeing people acquiring a lot of stuff, the trend is to look at the grandparents' hoard and groan.  

 

Yes, people look at their grandparents/parents packed houses and groan.  While grandma lived in a 1,000 sf cape cod, the parents lived in a 1,500 sf 70's house, and they themselves are living in a larger home, fewer kids, 3 car garage full with more cars parked outside, shed out back, rented storage unit...  I'm not seeing less consumption on average.  I'm seeing bigger hoards of faster turned over goods, with new stuff especially built as cheaply as possible. 

I don't buy the argument that experiences are not consumption. The sunset over the beach is an experience, but every dollar spent is consumption just as much as anything else. 

Or living in a small condo downtown is more "sustainable".  Downtown is expensive because it's way less efficient to rebuild in a built up area than on a blank slate development.  That money isn't "better spent" or better for the economy in some way because it's downtown. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by barnwife

[SamanthaCarter]

As imperfect as GDP is at measuring economic health, yes, services are counted in the number. So travel and experiences would be counted because airfare, lodging and meals were sold. And to say that these things have less environmental impact than manufacturing might be false. 

[frogger]

13 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

As imperfect as GDP is at measuring economic health, yes, services are counted in the number. So travel and experiences would be counted because airfare, lodging and meals were sold. And to say that these things have less environmental impact than manufacturing might be false. 

 

Absolutely. Flying all over the place as common practice is definitely a polluter. Of course, there are many other services from music lessons to household repairs.  

[regentrude]

20 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

As imperfect as GDP is at measuring economic health, yes, services are counted in the number. So travel and experiences would be counted because airfare, lodging and meals were sold. And to say that these things have less environmental impact than manufacturing might be false. 

Depends entirely on the experience. Spending money on violin lessons, poetry readings, art exhibitions, or college tuition do not have a large environmental impact.

[SamanthaCarter]

So trying to quantify who is more wasteful by socioeconomic status is tricky. The working class are not driving suvs, heating 3000 sq ft houses, and buying everything new. But as was pointed out, the wealthy may spend on experiences that have little environmental impact. There is no clear category on who is more wasteful. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by SamanthaCarter

[Peaceseeker]

I think we can all relax and assume that this will all be taken care of with the next major flu pandemic.  

(Just a little end of the world joke to lighten the mood here... ?) 

 

Let the debate continue...

[Bluegoat]

Here is a little snapshot of what we have in terms of stuff.  THis is not how it has always been.  You can see the change from generation to generation.

But I think this is a little bit of a diversion from the question of why we would have a system that claims a necessity for growth even with a stable population where eeryone has what they need.

[scholastica]

2 hours ago, SamanthaCarter said:

So trying to quantify who is more wasteful by socioeconomic status is tricky. The working class are not driving suvs, heating 3000 sq ft houses, and buying everything new. But as was pointed out, the wealthy may spend on experiences that have little environmental impact. There is no clear category on who is more wasteful. 

What experiences have little environmental impact? And it’s not like the wealthy, Warren Buffet aside, generally live in small homes with least amount of necessities, and then only spend on experiences.

[barnwife]

18 minutes ago, scholastica said:

What experiences have little environmental impact?

violin lessons, poetry readings, art exhibitions, or college tuition do not have a large environmental impact. Because music teachers, poets, artists and the whole college administration, donate all their wages to NPR, and the university power plants run on unicorn farts. 

Why do we have this system?  because it was successful enough for long enough to spread?  That doesn't justify it, or make any predictions of the remaining life, that's just my answer to why we have a system that demands growth. 

My point in highlighting the difference between excessive consumer spending and investment spending is that we have the margin in our economic system to be comfortable and secure beyond the dreams of past generations.  And I think simply adopting/applying current proven technology is more than adequate to do this for a couple generations.

[Bootsie]

One reason many people favor economic growth is that they want to have some growth in their savings.  Without long-run economic growth, someone who works from 20-60, would have to save 1/3 of what they produced during those work years to consume to the age of 80.  

[SKL]

7 hours ago, scholastica said:

Are you seriously going to argue that rich people consume less? Because massive multiple houses is what everybody "needs" right? Because that's how the people who have long ago had what they "need" live. They just acquire ever more gadgets and gizmos. Or a massive collection of expensive cars (Jay Leno anyone?). Sure they travel and attend arts events. But that's in addition to consuming all kinds of goods. Just look at the hundreds of pairs of shoes some people own. No-one, no-one needs hundreds of pairs of shoes, or expensive cars, or whatever. People don't stop consuming when their needs are met. They just move on to wants, lots and lots of wants.

Some people are conspicuous about their ability to spend money, yes, but there are also many people who have no interest in acquiring things other than for their utility.  You don't notice those people because they are not out there making a splash.

Most of the well-off people I know are motivated by the desire to make a difference for others.  Passing them on the street, you would never know they had above average income or wealth.

What is it about our culture that makes people even look or notice who has what?  Why do people in some circles experience pressure to present a tangible image in order to prove they have value?  And why do people feed the vanity of those who think having x number of cars or shoes matters?

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, jdahlquist said:

One reason many people favor economic growth is that they want to have some growth in their savings.  Without long-run economic growth, someone who works from 20-60, would have to save 1/3 of what they produced during those work years to consume to the age of 80.  

 

That is a feature of the growth system, not am element of nature.  When talking about steady state systems, it's a change of system, not just swapping out random elements.

Most of human history has had no-growth systems.

[SKL]

Well I guess if we were all still living in caves wearing animal skins, that might be better for the environment (though all those wood fires could still do a number on the atmosphere).  But would it be better all around?  (I guess some would say yes.)

I don't understand why some people have to be so black and white about this.  There is such a thing as sustainable development.  Also if you look at actual historical examples of negative growth, I believe you will find degradation of the environment rather than the opposite.

[Bootsie]

42 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

That is a feature of the growth system, not am element of nature.  When talking about steady state systems, it's a change of system, not just swapping out random elements.

Most of human history has had no-growth systems.

How is it not an element of nature?  If I catch 3 fish today, the only way I have fish tomorrow is if I either fish tomorrow or if I save one of the fish from today to eat tomorrow.  If I work (either for pay or work catching fish, growing tomatoes, etc.) while I am 20-60, I can only have food to eat when I am 61 if I have save some of the food I earned when I was working.  If there is no economic growth the one fish I saved is still one fish when I retire.  

Much of human history has had a growth system--it has been fueled by population growth.

[frogger]

17 hours ago, HeighHo said:

I agree that there are a lot of disposable goods that could be done without, were people persuaded to give up some convenience. I am not seeing people acquiring a lot of stuff, the trend is to look at the grandparents' hoard and groan.  

 

I wonder how this affects all those averages. Lol My Grandfather in law had a 3000 square foot home. The upstairs was storage for misc. unused stuff. When he passed away my family of 6 lived in an 1100 square foot home that had less stuff in it than his main floor. He also had a workshop so full you couldn't walk through it. The workshop was big enough to pull 18 wheelers into, 2 of them, side by side. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, jdahlquist said:

How is it not an element of nature?  If I catch 3 fish today, the only way I have fish tomorrow is if I either fish tomorrow or if I save one of the fish from today to eat tomorrow.  If I work (either for pay or work catching fish, growing tomatoes, etc.) while I am 20-60, I can only have food to eat when I am 61 if I have save some of the food I earned when I was working.  If there is no economic growth the one fish I saved is still one fish when I retire.  

Much of human history has had a growth system--it has been fueled by population growth.

 

Saving is not growth of the economy as a whole.  If a population is stable in terms of growth, and people are saving enough for the future, that is still a stable amount of production over time. Another way you could conceptualise that is imagine that the non-workers are being supported by the workers, the way children are.  The whole productivity of society will remain at about the same level overall, which some fluctuations for demographic changes.

Increased production in relation to population growth isn't the same as a growth system.  

I suspect the reason you are thinking growth is necessary or saving is inflation, but that is closely tied into the growth system.  

[frogger]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Well I guess if we were all still living in caves wearing animal skins, that might be better for the environment (though all those wood fires could still do a number on the atmosphere).  But would it be better all around?  (I guess some would say yes.)

I don't understand why some people have to be so black and white about this.  There is such a thing as sustainable development.  Also if you look at actual historical examples of negative growth, I believe you will find degradation of the environment rather than the opposite.

 

Or we would have made more animals go extinct from over hunting. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Well I guess if we were all still living in caves wearing animal skins, that might be better for the environment (though all those wood fires could still do a number on the atmosphere).  But would it be better all around?  (I guess some would say yes.)

I don't understand why some people have to be so black and white about this.  There is such a thing as sustainable development.  Also if you look at actual historical examples of negative growth, I believe you will find degradation of the environment rather than the opposite.

 

Look, I'm really not sure why you are so keen to say stuff like this without engaging.  No one has said we all need to live in caves with skins.  Maybe we do, but if we can't even look at what is sustainable and talk about what the implications of that are, we really don't know, do we?  There is no principle that tells us that surely sustainable development will allow us to live the same way we do now.

If you are convinced that we can do anything we want and it won't affect nature, your viewpoint on this is pretty fixed.  If nothing but total collapse will convince you that has happened, there isn't much to discuss - all we can do is wait and see that it has happened.  

I have zero idea why you think lack of growth corresponds to environmental degradation.  Maybe you could try giving some examples.  Given that there was very little economic growth apart from population growth before the modern period, you have a lot of ground to cover.

 

[frogger]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Saving is not growth of the economy as a whole.  If a population is stable in terms of growth, and people are saving enough for the future, that is still a stable amount of production over time. Another way you could conceptualise that is imagine that the non-workers are being supported by the workers, the way children are.  The whole productivity of society will remain at about the same level overall, which some fluctuations for demographic changes.

Increased production in relation to population growth isn't the same as a growth system.  

I suspect the reason you are thinking growth is necessary or saving is inflation, but that is closely tied into the growth system.  

 

Inflation is the devaluation of currency and irrelevant to the conversation. When people say they want to grow their savings they usually want to outpace inflation by a decent margin. Anything less than the rate of inflation is considered losing money.

 

Growth is important to savers although I guess if you want people to consume less and barely survive than you wouldn't want people to have more retirement. 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, frogger said:

 

Inflation is the devaluation of currency and irrelevant to the conversation. When people say they want to grow their savings they usually want to outpace inflation by a decent margin. Anything less than the rate of inflation is considered losing money.

 

Growth is important to savers although I guess if you want people to consume less and barely survive than you wouldn't want people to have more retirement. 

 

No, it isn't irrelevant.  Why do you think people want the growth of their savings to outpace inflation?  Why do they think that should even be something that happens?

 

[Bluegoat]

I think if this conversation, which is not at all what I was thinking in the OP, is going to be productive, it might be a good idea if people had some sense of what is meant when people talk about a steady-state economy.  Here is a wiki article on the general concept - another good read is the Catholic economist E F Schumacher who wrote Small is Beautiful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy

[frogger]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

No, it isn't irrelevant.  Why do you think people want the growth of their savings to outpace inflation?  Why do they think that should even be something that happens?

 

 

If I lived on a deserted island (to keep interactions simple) and lived on what I could gather an investment would be akin to taking time to make a net. It doesn't get me extra food now. I may be barely surviving but the reason I do it is so it will be easier to get fish later. That would be a real investment. 

 

Inflation is actual devaluation of currency by the government. What does the government printing more money have to do with anything? If I save $10 now and can only consume $5 worth of goods later why would I want to lose all that work. I suppose you want massive inflation so no one can buy food in the future?

[frogger]

7 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I think if this conversation, which is not at all what I was thinking in the OP, is going to be productive, it might be a good idea if people had some sense of what is meant when people talk about a steady-state economy.  Here is a wiki article on the general concept - another good read is the Catholic economist E F Schumacher who wrote Small is Beautiful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy

 

Ah yes, if the government causes stagnation it's good but if it naturally happens it's bad. Lol

[regentrude]

33 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

No, it isn't irrelevant.  Why do you think people want the growth of their savings to outpace inflation?  Why do they think that should even be something that happens?

Because otherwise you could not possibly be saving enough during your working years to live in retirement. If I have 40 years to save the money to live for 30 years during which I cannot work, that is only possible if there is growth. This is why people invest instead of hoarding dollar bills under their mattress.

Edited November 16, 2018 by regentrude

[maize]

I would think that even services industry growth depends significantly on population growth, at a global if not always a local level. An individual human can only produce and/or consume so much, no matter what type of production or consumption we are talking about. And as humans are the consumers even of automated sorts of economic activities (let's say most manual labor is eventually replaced by machines) indefinite economic growth seems to me impossible within a given system (our planet). I don't see a way for continuous human population growth to be sustainable; I am convinced that at some point we are going to have to drastically rethink economics. 

[Bootsie]

48 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Saving is not growth of the economy as a whole.  If a population is stable in terms of growth, and people are saving enough for the future, that is still a stable amount of production over time. Another way you could conceptualise that is imagine that the non-workers are being supported by the workers, the way children are.  The whole productivity of society will remain at about the same level overall, which some fluctuations for demographic changes.

Increased production in relation to population growth isn't the same as a growth system.  

I suspect the reason you are thinking growth is necessary or saving is inflation, but that is closely tied into the growth system.  

I did not say that I thought that growth is necessary.  I was addressing a broader question of why many people do find a positive growth rate in the economy as desirable.

Economic growth, as I understand it, is an outward shift in the production possibilities frontier.  This can occur because (1) an increase in resources/inputs (one of which can be people, (2) improved technology to use the resources that we have, (3) more capital goods to use the resources that we have.

I am not sure what you mean by the term "a growth system".  I can see how an economic system has growth as a component or factor. 

Yes, there could be a situation in which a certain age range of society catches fish every day--if you have 40 people between the ages of 20 and 60 in a society and each catches two fish a day, then you could feed one person between the ages of 1 and 80 each day.  Each person currently fishing would have to trust that those who are less than 20 (and those who aren't even born yet) will continue this process.  They will also have to assume that they won't live past 80 and that there will be no decrease in the population size.  

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Look, I'm really not sure why you are so keen to say stuff like this without engaging.  No one has said we all need to live in caves with skins.  Maybe we do, but if we can't even look at what is sustainable and talk about what the implications of that are, we really don't know, do we?  There is no principle that tells us that surely sustainable development will allow us to live the same way we do now.

If you are convinced that we can do anything we want and it won't affect nature, your viewpoint on this is pretty fixed.  If nothing but total collapse will convince you that has happened, there isn't much to discuss - all we can do is wait and see that it has happened.  

I have zero idea why you think lack of growth corresponds to environmental degradation.  Maybe you could try giving some examples.  Given that there was very little economic growth apart from population growth before the modern period, you have a lot of ground to cover.

 

You didn't start out talking about what is sustainable, you started out angry that everyone doesn't agree that negative growth is necessary to human existence.  You were prepared to write a letter to your news source criticizing them for not reporting economic growth as a negative rather than a positive.

I certainly never said we can do anything we want and it won't affect nature.  I don't take a black / white view of things.  This is a very complex, fluid issue and it's affected daily by new technology, better information, cultural evolution, natural ecology, and yes, the levels of human prosperity.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

No, it isn't irrelevant.  Why do you think people want the growth of their savings to outpace inflation?  Why do they think that should even be something that happens?

 

Some people do not think that it is something that should happen, but still think that it is something that they find desirable.  Most people demonstrate a positive discount rate when it comes to consuming something that gives them utility.  When faced with a choice of consuming a fish today or a fish in 10 years, most people chose today.  If someone is faced with the choice of consuming one fish today or 2 fish in 10 years, they are more likely to postpone current consumption for future consumption.  Because many people want to ensure that they can have fish to eat in the future (when perhaps they are too sick too work, the weather is not ideal, etc.) and do not want to solely depend upon the fact that someone, who is unborn at this time, will gladly give them a fish in the future, they know they must save some fish now.  

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Ah yes, if the government causes stagnation it's good but if it naturally happens it's bad. Lol

 

Is that really what you got out of that whole article?

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

More productive to discuss ideas than criticize people's comments.  Perhaps you could pick one point you 'd like to discuss?

 

The problem of economic models divorced from nature is a interesting point, especially as that has not overwhelmingly been true in economics, only certain early 20th century models.

The entropy problem is quite interesting.  The idea that a an economy is a system embedded in  embedded in another finite system is I think the most important point - that's the fundamental issue of the growth economy.  

The treatment of the possibility of technological solutions I thought was very interesting.

 

[frogger]

One of the first rules of economics IS scarcity.  It's imbedded in most every economic model there is. I seem to have a different view of even basic economic principles than Daley.  Secondly, I believe that a powerful government is going to be more influenced by the wealthy than not so the thought of following Daley's ideas will in reality benefit them at the expense of everyone else. Here is a quote from the posted link  of Daley's ideas according to the article for all those who are interested but don't have time to read the whole article.

 

"Consequently, Daly recommends that a system of permanent government restrictions on the economy is established as soon as possible, a steady-state economy. Whereas the classical economists believed that the final stationary state would settle by itself as the rate of profit fell and capital accumulation came to an end (see above), Daly wants to create the steady-state politically by establishing three institutions of the state as a superstructure on top of the present market economy:

• The first institution is to correct inequality to some extent by putting minimum and maximum limits on incomes, maximum limits on wealth, and then redistribute accordingly.
• The second institution is to stabilise the population by issuing transferable reproduction licenses to all fertile women at a level corresponding with the general replacement fertility in society.
• The third institution is to stabilise the level of capital by issuing and selling depletion quotas that impose quantitative restrictions on the flow of resources through the economy. Quotas effectively minimise the throughput of resources necessary to maintain any given level of capital (as opposed to taxes, that merely alter the prevailing price structure)."  

 

 

 

 

 

Currently the US government greatly subsidizes consumption and I mean by a lot! Even getting rid of the subsidies would make a big difference. Taxing production of greenhouse gases and refuse would also help if you wanted to deal with things structurally but the lobbyists would ,of course, ask for favors from the government to have special exemptions or subsidies. I do think there are problems structurally with our government and its incentives and they only make Daley's ideas more scary, certainly not less. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by frogger
crazy commas

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

The problem of economic models divorced from nature is a interesting point, especially as that has not overwhelmingly been true in economics, only certain early 20th century models.

The entropy problem is quite interesting.  The idea that a an economy is a system embedded in  embedded in another finite system is I think the most important point - that's the fundamental issue of the growth economy.  

The treatment of the possibility of technological solutions I thought was very interesting.

 

I would not say that economic models are divorced from nature.  In fact, economic models firmly embrace human nature.  Most economic models are not designed to be prescriptive; they are designed to be descriptive and to help us understand the reality around us.  I do not see economic models that say we "need growth" or we "should have growth"  Many talk about what causes growth and what the results of growth are.  In fact, many economic models talk about how the economic system will handle or deal with growth.  

[maize]

1 hour ago, jdahlquist said:

I would not say that economic models are divorced from nature.  In fact, economic models firmly embrace human nature.  Most economic models are not designed to be prescriptive; they are designed to be descriptive and to help us understand the reality around us.  I do not see economic models that say we "need growth" or we "should have growth"  Many talk about what causes growth and what the results of growth are.  In fact, many economic models talk about how the economic system will handle or deal with growth.  

Economic models may not prescribe growth but our economy depends on growth to function in what we view as a healthy way. When measures of economic growth are not rising as fast as we want them to doom and gloom and much hand wringing and finger pointing ensue.

Economic growth is seen as imperative in our business and political spheres.

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, maize said:

I would think that even services industry growth depends significantly on population growth, at a global if not always a local level. An individual human can only produce and/or consume so much, no matter what type of production or consumption we are talking about. And as humans are the consumers even of automated sorts of economic activities (let's say most manual labor is eventually replaced by machines) indefinite economic growth seems to me impossible within a given system (our planet). I don't see a way for continuous human population growth to be sustainable; I am convinced that at some point we are going to have to drastically rethink economics. 

I guess the thing with population growth though is that in almost all wealthy/ high consumer countries population seems to go into decline.  It’s only the poorer countries where individual consumption is less that population keeps escalating.

[SamanthaCarter]

16 minutes ago, maize said:

Economic models may not prescribe growth but our economy depends on growth to function in what we view as a healthy way. When measures of economic growth are not rising as fast as we want them to doom and gloom and much hand wringing and finger pointing ensue.

Economic growth is seen as imperative in our business and political spheres.

Yes, economic growth is imperative to our monetary policy. I think this is why reporters and commentators are so big on the slowdown of growth = fear; rapid growth = celebration. No one will be happy with fiscal collapse, and in that scenario, the environment will be the last things on our minds! 

[Bootsie]

46 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

Yes, economic growth is imperative to our monetary policy. I think this is why reporters and commentators are so big on the slowdown of growth = fear; rapid growth = celebration. No one will be happy with fiscal collapse, and in that scenario, the environment will be the last things on our minds! 

The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate:  price stability and maximum sustainable employment.  Theoretically, economic growth is not necessary for this.  If our population is growing at all, however, maximum sustainable employment would probably be associated with economic growth.  Also, if we have any technological improvements (MRIs, now medications, etc.) we would probably see economic growth.  

Federal Reserve monetary policy is supposed to be to have a growth in monetary aggregates that is aligned with that economic growth (so that we have price stability).  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, maize said:

Economic growth is seen as imperative in our business and political spheres.

Yes, politicians have an interest in economic growth.  Saying that politically there is a bias toward the promotion of economic growth is different than saying that economic models depend on economic growth.  

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess the thing with population growth though is that in almost all wealthy/ high consumer countries population seems to go into decline.  It’s only the poorer countries where individual consumption is less that population keeps escalating.

 

So ,I think there is some confusion between growth that is mainly about population growth, and growth that isn't.  Our economy requires growth even if there is no population growth.

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So ,I think there is some confusion between growth that is mainly about population growth, and growth that isn't.  Our economy requires growth even if there is no population growth.

How does our economy require growth?  I think a lot of people like and enjoy economic growth.  That is about people's preferences and utility.  That does not make it a requirement of the economy--simply desirable to a large number of people.