Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

and_dont_blink t1_j350noe wrote

this renewed push for centrally-planned economies is not going to end well. we're currently dealing with the outcomes of the poorly-sourced Modern Monetary Theory and this is the same throwback to "hey, just plan everything out from a central place there are efficiencies being wasted!". It has the veneer of science and logic, just like Marx did, except it ignores basic realities and papers over the actual science by not showing its math and not accounting for things we know to be true -- like the fact that people like stuff.

Here's a basic example from their article that becomes hilarious, where they argue for shifting away from capitalism to models that don't really exist or are akin to Donut Theory (not really showing their math):

>Balancing the national economy will require new macro-economic models that combine economic, financial, social and ecological variables. Models such as LowGrow SFC (developed by T.J. and P.A.V.), EUROGREEN and MEDEAS are already being used to project the impacts of degrowth policies, including redistributive taxes, universal public services and reductions in working time.
>
>But these models typically focus on a single country and fail to take into account cross-border dynamics, such as movements of capital and currency. For example, if markets are spooked by low growth in one country, some companies might move their capital overseas, which could adversely affect the original country’s currency and increase borrowing costs. Conditions such as these posed severe financial problems for Argentina in 2001 and Greece in 2010. International cooperation for tighter border control of capital movements needs to be considered and the effects modelled.

So we have to find the right model or create one and shift away from capitalism and all will be well -- the ones listed are not exactly ready for primetime. But when you do that, if you're the only one doing it everything will collapse because capital and resources will go towards more competitive markets. They're basically telling you that even if it did work, it would never actually work unless everyone did it at once, hence this could only happen in a constrained system where all the larger countries were in full cooperation. Which isn't realistic without force. Which brings us full circle to Marx, but don't worry the taking over with force for your own good is only temporary!

This is not a real answer to anything, and they're actually telling you it themselves.

11

paracog t1_j35k609 wrote

Economic growth, it seems, doesn't need to be attached to increased use of resources. Bucky Fuller's vision of a future where we do more with less seems the way forward. Sustainable energy, vertical agriculture/aquaculture, cheap desalinization, walkable cities, small smart domiciles, low impact transport. All sane goals.

8

xxHamsterLoverxx t1_j363umr wrote

but who would profit off that? the average joe and noone cares about him.

3

AftyOfTheUK t1_j379xrn wrote

>but who would profit off that?

Who would profit off economic growth based on innovation? I dunno, maybe people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos?

4

prettymuchneverdoes t1_j35hzw3 wrote

All we have to do now is convince the handful of sociopathic, wealth hoarding, baby eaters, who control most of our resources.

7

Raptorman_Mayho t1_j36mx83 wrote

The pointless goal of constant growth had ruined many great business too. I think companies will be so much better if their focus is to execute well while making a profit.

7

isummonyouhere t1_j38lu2n wrote

> This would train and mobilize labour around urgent social and ecological objectives, such as installing renewables, insulating buildings, regenerating ecosystems and improving social care.

all of that will grow the economy you idiots

5

olaf_nordmann t1_j3ifr2e wrote

still negotiating with bio-physical limits I see?

5

AftyOfTheUK t1_j379ofc wrote

Jesus Reddit, stop hating economic growth just because you don't understand it.

Unbounded economic growth is possible even in a world with static resources available.

Economic growth happens when we do more things, or build more things, for each other.

New techniques and innovation constantly allow us to do more with less.

The sentence "Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy" is true - you don't even need to append "if they abandon economic growth as an objective." onto the end of the sentence. The sentence is true without it - in fact, adding it is misleading because when you add it, the sentence insinuates that it cannot be done without abandoning that objective, which is simply not true.

4

shiftystylin t1_j376uqv wrote

From my understanding economic growth has it's roots in capitalism (technically neoliberal capitalism). Neoliberalism's singular objective is to maximise profit whilst cutting costs. In order to make more money, you require more things to be sold at a high price and low cost. Things that need to be built require resources, be that physical and/or natural resources, or human driven and/or manufactured resources, but you cut the costs of those resources, manufacturing and cost of delivery wherever possible.

You really need to take away that ideology from the people at the top because they ultimately own the narrative and spread it throughout the media in order to maintain the status quo, and thus drive economic growth for the sole reason for more profit.

I often wondered if you built a business where you were transparent with your earnings, and transparent with the pay of others, and have the sole ambition of providing stable work for people rather than use them to drive a profit, whether that business would survive and how many applicants you'd have for a job there...

2

AftyOfTheUK t1_j37ajs7 wrote

>From my understanding economic growth has it's roots in capitalism

No, economic growth is simply what happens when we do more for each other, or do existing things for each other better. It can happen under capitalism, communism, anarchism etc.

>Neoliberalism's singular objective is to maximise profit whilst cutting costs.

That's not a singular objective, that's two objectives. Your sentence would be more accurate if you just left it at "Neoliberalism's singular objective is to maximise profit" - however, that's not the objective. Profit is simply an incentive within the neoliberal system, used to promote it's actual objective - to create as much wealth as possible.

The problem is that neoliberalism (for the most part) is concerned primarily with creating wealth, and doesn't really get involved with how fair the distribution of that wealth is. That's why we need progressive taxes on that wealth creation, to redistribute some of it.

>I often wondered if you built a business where you... have the sole ambition of providing stable work for people

Command economies have been attempted many times, and they generally result in terrible conditions for the workers and people within the system, except perhaps a small number of people at the upper echelons of "the party"

5

shiftystylin t1_j37jpt9 wrote

Thanks. You often don't learn anything without exposing your ignorance and having someone come and slap you with the truth.

I guess I'm trying to say it feels like Neoliberals focus on economic growth is solely to ensure they're gaining more profit. There doesn't seem to be any other benefit to economic growth if all the additional 'money' (for lack of the educated term) is just being funnelled away in untouchable dragon hoard's and not put back into the economic system us normy's share?

2

AftyOfTheUK t1_j37kt3q wrote

>I guess I'm trying to say it feels like Neoliberals focus on economic growth is solely to ensure they're gaining more profit.

I think that's a fair statement about some neoliberals - though it's worth pointing out that only a tiny percentage of people make big profits, and there are a lot more neoliberals than that.

It's worth pointing out that many people push whatever scheme or system would make them the most money - capitalists voting for capitalism to make more profit is (in my opinion) no more or less evil than communists voting for communism because they are incapable of exchanging their time/skills for the money they want, so they desire a system that takes it from others by force.

>There doesn't seem to be any other benefit to economic growth if all the additional 'money' (for lack of the educated term) is just being funnelled away in untouchable dragon hoard's and not put back into the economic system

It is put back into the system though. These people don't keep 20 billion in cash. They invest it in new companies/ventures all the time. Those new companies (and the services/goods they offer) are economic growth. And their employees and customers are gaining from that growth.

Now, whether or not those people should CONTROL such a huge amount of the system is another discussion. But the profits they make don't go away.

2

AutoModerator t1_j33zdrk wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

druhood t1_j379kim wrote

Capitalism will destroy the human race before it stops chasing growth

−1