A Tree is a Tree: Growthmanship in the Developed World

It does and it has. But that's not all it does - it's not even the most important thing it does and it's a bi-product, not a targeted outcome, of economic growth. Well it's a strange and dumb question isn't it? False choice. I have no idea whether you're rich or poor and vice versa. But the word 'poverty' really should be reserved for people who are greatly deprived, not for those of us that have the resources and time to indulge in discussions like this. It's a naive and hopelessly simple comparison.In any case, the apple tree's growth is not stopped, it's regulated and it's output increases as a result. This discussion - as far as I can gather - is about reducing growth which also appears to involve reducing employment to zero. Utterly barking.

It doesn't make any difference whether its a targeted outcome or not. The question is whether or not it's a desirable outcome. It's a question that you make a point of avoiding. You seem to be saying that economic growth "produces" happiness, at least indirectly, so the question is pertinent. I agree. The misuse of the word, such as when it is applied to me, is done by people who believe in economic growth as a necessity. They are the ones who are putting artificial economic numbers on "happiness". The tree's expansion is stopped. Are you going to weasel a difference between "growth" and "expansion"? Maybe you should try gathering again. I, for one, have suggested no such thing.

Who is going to say that inceasing happiness would not be a desirable output? And my reason for not answering is that 'it's a strange and dumb question and a false choice.' I don't 'seem', to be saying it, I am saying it and it's not in any doubt. It's blindingly obvious that it does. It does it by pushing society as a whole up Maslow's pyramid. The question is not whether it does, it's whether marginal increases in economic growth create equivalent increases in human advancement globally and whether the side-effects of pollution and so on are worth the candle.The answer to that is complicated by the fact that economic growth does not happen purely to satisfy short-term subjective assessments of human happiness in the developed world. It's a much, much more complex issue than that and the metrics so far considered - happiness and well-being in the first world - are not particularly useful in getting to answers.There's also another agenda involving 100% unemployment which is supposed to make everyone much happier Which I find totally baffling. If by that you're asking whether I'm going to point out the material error in the comparison, yes I am. The apple tree is not pruned to stop its physical expansion, it's pruned to improve its output - ie its economic expansion (growth). If its output could be acheived without pruning, it would not be pruned. But enough of failed analogies.

No, 'globally' is not the question of this thread.I have been very clear on the fact that this thread is about the developed world and the developed world alone.

I have an economic question. IF the developed world scaled back its growth, what would happen to the third world?(hypothetically)Capitalists may argue that growth is for the benefit of the undeveloped...(even though they keep 95% of the gains)

Yes, you have and I've rejected that restriction. The economy is global, what happens in China affects the USA and Africa. If the banking sector in the developed world fails, the whole world suffers.You're building a castle in the sky, a pure fantasy.

That's not really on topic, Phat.But a quick answer would be: They'd likely welcome the lessening of the severity with which we currently rape them to fuel our endlessand pointlesseconomic growth.

Then it's time for your participation in this thread to end.

This brings up the issue of philosophy. One man sees growth as the only way to make a buck. Another man questions the need for the buck, pointing out that being fed, clothed, and sheltered is enough.Is that more on topic?

We humans collectively and individually question our happiness and our purpose in life. In my other topic I mention some of the problems and challenges at my workplace. Workers argue for more...always more. Better health care, better hours...more money. Better retirement. Newer workers are forced to follow this drummer...often questioning why they are not paid as well as the older guys or why they must empty the trash rather than scanning groceries. No. Although I might think I would be miserable earning less than I do now, what I really find as i examine my life is that I need more time and more peace of mind more than I need money.The solutions that you propose are logical and yet would likely be fought. 1) What else do rich guys need money for...if not to gain and use power?2) Quality of life and philosophy of happiness are indeed important to discuss.3) Imagine! If we could change labor unions....but would we even need them? If we had good health care and didn't need good wages...4) Phasing out consumerism is a giant task and I fear most folks wouldnt even understand the need to do so.5) I agree...tax the crap out of the greedy and the wasteful. Unfortunately they have money and lawyers, however.6) Would i want to co-own my store? Would it be worth the hard work??Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

Of course it's on topic, it holes your argument below the water line. What you mean is that it inconveniently burns your straw man.

Haha. If only you could restrict the discussion to those that agree with you eh? Good luck with that.

Perhaps. But we're not really talking about one man's opinion against another's. The metrics presented are averages, and they take into consideration mostly objective facets of well being such as resource depletion, education, life expectancy, and environmental quality.The key thing driving this is the economic concept of marginality (marginal utility, marginal benefits, diminishing marginal returns, etc.) which I have mentioned a couple of times now.An example might help demonstrate this: Imagine a community of 100 people who can each eat no more than 10 loaves of bread a day, need at least 2 to survive, and can be satisfied with 5. If there are 100 loaves of bread to divide amongst them equally, all of those loaves will provide a high utility to the community (demonstrated by the community's demand for bread). If 200 loaves are divided equally, again, all of those loaves will provide a high utility. With 300 loaves, however, the utility provided is not as high, since everyone is now surviving. And so on up to 500/day. After 500/day, the utility provided drops substantially since everyone is now satisfied (they can eat more, but it doesn't make them less hungry). After 1,000 loaves it is impossible for the community to consume any more bread. More bread at this point provides no utility. This situation can be represented on a graph:The concept of marginal utility, which is what this is, tells us that the benefits from consumption of additional units of a good/service begin to diminish as those goods/services satisfy wants/needs. The fewer wants/needs that remain (or the lower the importance of those wants/needs) the less the benefit of additional consumption (because it satisfies fewer wants/needs or wants/needs of less importance).Now some folks might argue that this situation does not apply to every case of consumption, production, etc. They will tell you that the world we live in is one in which economic laws don't apply to certain things. But they are wrong. Every good/service can be overproduced. It is a simple economic fact grounded in the biological reality that we are not immortal.* As such, our ability to absorb the benefits of increased production are limited. Not just bread and cars, but medicine, education, oil, TVseven breathable air! And this is what we see in the measurements of standard of living compared to economic growth, which proves the diminished marginal benefit of consuming additional economic growth.Things start to get complex when we include costs (and not just benefits) in the equation so let's skip that for now and just ask ourselves whether we're at a point yet where increased growth no longer provides increased benefits.It is try that we are probably not at that point with all goods/services. But with many, yes. And the evidence I've presented (against which no opposing evidence has been offered) demonstrates that, on the aggregate, our current level of economic growth is beyond our ability to reap benefits from that growth.Will we see huge increases in well-being if we, for example, make some of that growth targeted? Maybe, but it's likely that the increase will be small and that, in fact, even after maxing out in growing targeted areas we will find much of our current growth superfluous.So it doesn't come down to one man deciding what is enough. It comes down to society deciding what is enough, and the evidence indicates that society has decided that enough is much less than what we're working our asses off trying to produce but a hell of a lot more than food, clothing, and shelter. Enough is a level of production/consumption (not production/consumption of identical goods, as Tangle has tried to make us think with his nonsense about computers) similar to that of the late 1970s.
____________________
* Of course, if we ever break that barrier, then that economic fact might be thrown into question, but until we do, it is the reality with which we live.

Remove accidental double post.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Here are some statistics reported from several sources including the Guardian and NYTimes.

quote:

---

BRIEF STATISTICS

​

* 97% of of the population at Pine Ridge Reservation live below federal poverty line.

​

* The unemployment rate vacillates from 85% to 95% on the Reservation.

​

* Death due to Heart Disease: Twice the national average.

​

* The infant mortality rate is the highest on this continent and is about 300% higher than the U.S. national average.

​

* Elderly die each winter from hypothermia (freezing).

​

* Recent reports point out that the median income on the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.

​

* At least 60% of the homes are severely substandard, without water, electricity, adequate insulation, and sewage systems.

​

* Recent reports state the average life expectancy is 45 years old while others state that it is 48 years old for men and 52 years old for women. With either set of figures, that's the shortest life expectancy for any community in the Western Hemisphere outside Haiti, according to The Wall Street Journal.

---

From the American Indian Humanitarian Foundation. You may want to read the whole thing for a full appreciation of how happy they must be under such conditions.I have read enough primary sources to assure you, this is one case in which I can definitely state the Lakota were happier before civilization inadequately bestowed its blessings upon them.And this is in a first-world country.Edited by anglagard, : Misspelled titleEdited by anglagard, : Add to quote for clarity of response