Degrowth - a new way of looking at things?

[hobbyguy]

Caught an interview on CBC radio about "degrowth" as a way forward. Here's one article about it: http://en.demagazine.eu/sharing-ideas/what-economic-degrowth

The reason this caught my attention was that I was, in my eccentric way, looking at the correlations of GDP to a variety of things. One of those things was general happiness. That graph showed very marginal increases in general happiness beyond a GDP level of about $15,000 per capita. Other GDP correlations, such as levels of democracy, levels of corruption, rule of law, all seemed to have rapidly diminishing increases in improvement beyond that level. Add to that the fact that median wages have decoupled from GDP growth since the 1970's, and it begs the questions that the "degrowth" movement is asking.

[Captain Awesome]

So, we want to go back in time or ... ? I'm failing to see ways to implement it.

[hobbyguy]

It's not really a "back in time" romanticism from what I've read so far. There are elements that will try the old hippie routine, and that's fine. It seems to be moving in the direction of community, reliance on your neighbors, energy conservation, and some of the principles you see with folks trying to simplify their lives.

It ties in with the discussions of whether governments should be focusing on GDP or GNH (gross national happiness).

If you are happy, does it matter whether you make 30K or 60K? Interestingly, my personal happiness is much higher than when my income was 4-5 times greater. Of course there are limits, if you make 15K it may become difficult to put food on the table.

[Captain Awesome]

If you are happy, does it matter whether you make 30K or 60K? Interestingly, my personal happiness is much higher than when my income was 4-5 times greater. Of course there are limits, if you make 15K it may become difficult to put food on the table.

They say the law of diminishing returns applies to income/happiness ratio too - once you hit $75,000/year upping your income won't produce much more happiness. Which kinda makes sense on some level - all your immideate needs at that point are met.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/a ... 28,00.html

[hobbyguy]

I wonder though, Captain, how much of that 75K number is based on the consumerism thing of having the very latest iPhone, the biggest McMansion etc. It is kind of sad that our society has fallen into the trap of people tending to equate a big chunk of their self-esteem with having a whole bunch of "stuff".

[Captain Awesome]

It is kind of sad that our society has fallen into the trap of people tending to equate a big chunk of their self-esteem with having a whole bunch of "stuff".

Meh. It's always been like this - even monkeys like to parade around wearing something flashy. Dumb people take it to the extreme and overextend themselves. Smart people live happily with what they have. Not a new thing by any stretch of imagination.

[Atomoa]

I don't know about economic de-growth.

Sustainability and stability for all - not a random emotional roller coaster ride of boom and unsustainable but necessary growth. Crashes, ruined lives and criminality and a rigged and tilted system bent towards a fraction of the population's advantage would be a good start.

It's not like humanity lacks the resources. When everyone has what they need, then we can start to talk about how simple can we keep things?

[Atomoa]

Meh. It's always been like this - even monkeys like to parade around wearing something flashy.

So, you're suggesting the 6th biggest industry dollar in the world really serves no purpose or has any effect on society?

If we just stopped marketing - we'd still be like monkeys wanting flashy things? That's nature?

The last time you looked at a chart comparing the rise of advertizing dollars spent to the rise of a materialistic/consumer society was what...the early 1900's? ;)

[hobbyguy]

LV - how about a logical defense of infinite growth?

We have a finite planet, nowhere else to go. Finite amount of arable land, finite amounts of non-renewable resources, finite amounts habitable area. We have a population that while exponentially larger than historical norms, is growing rapidly.

There has to be a limit somewhere, sometime.

Have we reached that limit? If not, what is the limit? Many have said that to support North American lifestyles for everybody would require multiple earths.

These are questions that current economics does not address. If we attempt to answer those questions, how do we meld those answers into our economic systems?

The "degrowth" movement may not have the answers, but at least somebody is trying. It is a conversation worth having.

[logicalview]

LV - how about a logical defense of infinite growth?

We have a finite planet, nowhere else to go. .

So you've never watched Star Trek eh? Come on, there is no limit to where we can go, if we try. Mankind is always innovating, despite the best efforts of leftists to kill all hopes and dreams with never ending negativism and a "it can't be done" philosophy of failure.

[Captain Awesome]

LV - how about a logical defense of infinite growth?

I don't think it needs any type of defense - it's just a fact of life. The growth is indeed infinite and thousands of years of mankind - years of constant growth - can attest to it. It's like evolution - it just happens without any of our involvement.

Well, except for that one time when 45% of people in Europe died from Black Plague. But you get my drift.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Just because a certain element of our society, especially those of the left-ward bent politically, can't understand basic economic principles, doesn't mean that everything has to be dumbed down to your level of intelligence. It's your responsibility, personally, to figure things out if you can't understand them. This kind of lazy-arse attitude is why parents are pulling their kids out of public schools in droves, because the leftists that have taken over our educational system are always forcing the smartest kids down to the level of the lowest common denominator. And that just leads to "a race to the bottom".

So I imagine you happily spend beyond your means on a regular basis, assured in the knowledge that more money will come from somewhere?

[hobbyguy]

Ca - yes indeed we have seen growth across thousands of years. And yes, much of it has been fueled by technological change, starting with stone tools etc.

The big BUT is that as a species we have not approached the limits of earth's ability to support growth until this century.

There are more people alive at present than all the ancestors that are dead prior to about 1,000 CE. The real population growth started to take off exponentially from the start of the industrial revolution. Tokyo alone has as many inhabitants as the entire population of the world only 4,000 years ago.

Here are a couple of articles making cohesive arguments that economic growth can not continue indefinitely: http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/02/15/why-i-think-the-economy-cant-grow-forever/http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

From the first, this quote: "Some people say a steady-state economy isn’t necessary because technology will allow us to keep growing despite our finite resources. Technology can give us breathing room but isn’t a solution. In the 1960s, food production was struggling to keep pace with the growing population. We averted the crisis through advances in high-yield, disease-resistant wheat. But we continued growing, and now we face problems again.

Some of these technological solutions are causing their own problems—fertilizer causes water pollution and groundwater is dwindling in a lot of places. So the way I see it, technology can create breathing room, but if we continue growing, we inevitably eat that up and find ourselves in an even tougher spot."

From the second, this quote: "Together with the last post, I have used physical analysis to argue that sustained economic growth in the long term is fantastical. Maybe for some, this is stating the obvious. After all, Adam Smith imagined a 200-year phase of economic growth followed by a steady state. But our mentality is currently centered on growth. Our economic systems rely on growth for investment, loans, and interest to make any sense. If we don’t deliberately put ourselves onto a steady state trajectory, we risk a complete and unchoreographed collapse of our economic institutions. - See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... GLS2F.dpuf"

[Atomoa]

So you've never watched Star Trek eh?

Nobody does anything for profit in Star Trek.

Space faring socialists, where everyone has what they need and where everyone works for the betterment of their neighbours.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/New_World_Economy

[Captain Awesome]

The big BUT is that as a species we have not approached the limits of earth's ability to support growth until this century.

There are more people alive at present than all the ancestors that are dead prior to about 1,000 CE. The real population growth started to take off exponentially from the start of the industrial revolution. Tokyo alone has as many inhabitants as the entire population of the world only 4,000 years ago.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of progress. Everybody thought we'll run out of food - but thanks to advancement in food technology we can feed entire world. Everybody thought we'll run out of coal to heat our houses, but we've came up with electricity and nuclear energy. Everybody thought the manure from horses in ever expanding London would prevent the city from growing, yet we've came up with cars, public transit, and mass transportation.

Japan has 130 million people living on a tiny island - Canada's population is only 30 million. Imagine how much more population just Canada can absorb? Just an example, not saying Canada will be Japan any time soon.

So, I remain optimistic just like on many other issues. I'm kinda stupid that way.