Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Tree is a Tree: Growthmanship in the Developed World
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 93 (757434)
05-08-2015 7:25 PM


Have First World societies out-developed their need for further economic growth? Is growth for growth's sake still necessary?
quote:
Vance Packard in The Waste Makers (1960):
No one has considered that you can make a country overgrow just as the Pentagon has concluded that you can "over-kill" any possible enemy if you keep on producing hydrogen bombs beyond any rational need. And few have considered that while some selective kinds of growth may well be needed in the United States, other kinds are undesirable or would produce only surfeit. It is just assumed that any growth is good. Growth is fast becoming a hallowed word alongside Democracy and Motherhood. (p. 35)
Certainly there was a time in the now-developed world in which many people lived so close to the edge of subsistence and extinction that growth in pretty much anything was indeed positive.
But is that the condition we still find ourselves in?
I don't think so and I think that we are at a crucial point in the history of our planet when it is of utmost importance to free ourselves from the superstition that says that it is.
I'm going to put my thoughts on this into bullet points, and I'll expand them if anyone is interested in a discussion on this topic.
First, why I think growthmanship now, more than ever, needs to be seriously questioned in the developed world:
  1. Increased growth no longer leads to increased well-being, largely due to:
    1. The areas in which the economy is growing are 'saturated'these areas are focused on for growth because either:
      1. it is more convenient/comfortable to do what we have always done, and/or
      2. the people who decide which areas to grow are the same ones who benefit from growth to these areas
    2. Building on the previous point, the benefits of further growth are increasingly going to enriching fewer and fewer people with little improvements seen amongst the commoners
  2. Increased growth requires increased resource extraction. Often the resources used up are limited and their depletion leaves economies dependent on their extraction in ruins (e.g., Nauru)
  3. Increased growth (of the current kind) leads to increased environmental degradation, even when resource extraction is managed responsibly. This is because to use is to waste and the planet possesses a limited carrying capacity for absorbing this waste (its sink) and catastrophic climate change results from our ignorance of this fact, which leads to
  4. Increased displacement of people in zones most sensitive to climate change and increased costs of repair and rebuilding in developed nations
Second, some ways I think we can be rid of growthmanship:
  1. Eliminate the influence of money in politics
  2. Increase awareness of the link between growthmanship and low quality of life/overall happiness
  3. Utilize labor unions not simple to protect growthmanship jobs but to help create jobs in areas where growth is needed
  4. Phase out consumerism
  5. Heavy taxes on wasteful growth
  6. Worker-owned industries
Finally, some alternatives to growthmanship:
  1. Coordinated systems of production based on need not profit
  2. An economic model that seeks 100% unemployment instead of its reverse
  3. Growth in areas where growth is necessary, such as education, environmental quality, community involvement, etc.
There are hurdles to overcome, some inherent in humanity and others built into the system, but I think this is a good start for a discussion and those hurdles can be dealt with as they come up.
There are also plenty more things that could be added under each heading, so we needn't limit discussion to only those things on the lists.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2015 7:49 PM Jon has replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-09-2015 12:11 AM Jon has replied
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 11:01 AM Jon has replied
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2015 5:31 PM Jon has replied
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 05-12-2015 9:58 AM Jon has replied
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 05-14-2015 2:26 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 82 by Dogmafood, posted 05-16-2015 10:05 AM Jon has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 2 of 93 (757436)
05-08-2015 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-08-2015 7:25 PM


Socialists, communists, and other authoritarians should just butt out and stop trying to micromanage humanity.
Don't all their failures make them realize they are totally unqualified to manage their own lives let alone anyone else's?
Or are we just supposed to let them extend their string of failures until we are all like Venezuela, and worse?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-08-2015 7:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 05-08-2015 9:01 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2015 3:41 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 93 (757439)
05-08-2015 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coyote
05-08-2015 7:49 PM


Growthism ≠ Capitalism
Thing is, communists are as bad at growthmanship as capitalists (e.g., the Aral Sea).
See, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. all deal with how to distribute the wealth. Growthmanship (or growthism) deals with how much wealth to produce.
Growthmanship has been favored by all modern economic systems.
So the solution is not as easy as switching from capitalism to socialism. In fact, doing so is sure to have no effect whatsoever on growthism or its negative side effects.
quote:
Wikipedia on Economic System:
An economic system is a system of production and exchange of goods and services as well as allocation of resources in a society.
Notice that the issues with which economic systems concern themselves are how goods/services are produced, how they are exchanged, and who benefits from these activities.
But growthism is outside of the economic system. It says that making the system (whatever it may be) work harder (whoever may be working), produce more (whatever may be produced), and create increasing benefits (regardless who gets them) is a goal in and of itself.
It's a problem that can exist under capitalism, socialism, or any other modern industrialized system.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : readability and clarity
Edited by Jon, : Typo

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2015 7:49 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 93 (757446)
05-09-2015 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-08-2015 7:25 PM


Say What?
quote:
...An economic model that seeks 100% unemployment instead of its reverse...
I dont quite understand how this would benefit anyone.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-08-2015 7:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 12:51 AM Phat has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 93 (757447)
05-09-2015 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
05-09-2015 12:11 AM


Re: Say What?
quote:
...An economic model that seeks 100% unemployment instead of its reverse...
I dont quite understand how this would benefit anyone.
Eventually (we may already be there) we develop the capacity to adequately provide for everyone's needs.
The rational step after reaching this point is to reduce the amount of work required to meet those needs (i.e., increase the efficiency) with the ideal being no work required, or 100% unemployment.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-09-2015 12:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 05-09-2015 1:08 AM Jon has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 93 (757449)
05-09-2015 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
05-09-2015 12:51 AM


Re: Say What?
so we wouldn't need to work? Would our rents be paid? Our cars gassed up and running trim?
Would our kids have clothes? Would we have free food?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 12:51 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 10:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 93 (757459)
05-09-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
05-09-2015 1:08 AM


Re: Say What?
so we wouldn't need to work? Would our rents be paid? Our cars gassed up and running trim?
Would our kids have clothes? Would we have free food?
You're still thinking in terms of unending growth.
quote:
crashfrog in Message 4 in Economic failure because of productivity increases / excessive productive capacity:
It's amazing how completely backwards you've all gotten it.
The world where production is accomplished with less and less human labor is a world of plenty, not a world of deprivation; it's the post-scarcity world of the Star Trek-style replicator where there is no need for money, because everything you want is so abundant that it is free.
When all of our needs can be met without the input of human labor, then the only rational thing to do is to meet our needs without the input of human labor.
Let me ask you this, Phat: Does it upset you that you don't have to run up to the mountains each week to hunt down some ice, chisel it out, and drag it back down the mountains to stick in your icebox? Or do you prefer a world where a machine cools the air inside your refrigerator automatically and continuously, keeping the temperature always the same and all with no effort from you?
Edited by Jon, : links

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 05-09-2015 1:08 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 8 of 93 (757462)
05-09-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-08-2015 7:25 PM


There's a huge amount of assertion and assumption here without any supporting evidence. It's also extremely US centric - not all developed countries are as extreme in their capitalism as the US.
Growth can be both good or bad or both depending on who you're talking about and when. At the moment China is a good example of growth delivering both simultaneously.
What we do seem to have some data on is that those developed countries with the least gap between rich and poor tend to be the most content. They are also high taxation countries with high social welfare.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-08-2015 7:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 12:21 PM Tangle has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 93 (757465)
05-09-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
05-09-2015 11:01 AM


It's also extremely US centric - not all developed countries are as extreme in their capitalism as the US.
As I said to Coyote, capitalism has little to do with it.
Growth can be both good or bad or both depending on who you're talking about and when.
Yes, and that is pretty much assumed in the OP:
quote:
Jon in Message 1:
Certainly there was a time in the now-developed world in which many people lived so close to the edge of subsistence and extinction that growth in pretty much anything was indeed positive.
...
Finally, some alternatives to growthmanship:
...
  1. Growth in areas where growth is necessary, such as education, environmental quality, community involvement, etc.

What we do seem to have some data on is that those developed countries with the least gap between rich and poor tend to be the most content.
Yet they still devote themselves to growthism. In fact, pretty much every modern economy (I cannot think of one exception) is built on growthism.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 11:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 1:06 PM Jon has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 10 of 93 (757467)
05-09-2015 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
05-09-2015 12:21 PM


Jon writes:
As I said to Coyote, capitalism has little to do with it.
Then let's call it trade instead. As Coyote's favourite author says, 'you could put two Chanamen on the moon and they'd make a living selling rocks to each other.' Trade is what grows economies and when growth stops you get stagnation.
Yet they still devote themselves to growthism. In fact, pretty much every modern economy (I cannot think of one exception) is built on growthism.
I think you'll find that they devote themselves to having strong economies that can fund the social good. Growth is a biproduct of a strong economy. Stagnation tends to be a biproduct of a poor economy.
So far, you haven't made a case for an alternative or even offered any evidence to show that this 'growthism' of your invention is the bad thing you seem to think it is.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 12:21 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 05-09-2015 1:13 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 12 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 1:18 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 11 of 93 (757468)
05-09-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tangle
05-09-2015 1:06 PM


Tangle writes:
... when growth stops you get stagnation.
What about a fruit tree? You prune away the excess growth to prevent stagnation and promote production of what you need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 1:06 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 93 (757470)
05-09-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tangle
05-09-2015 1:06 PM


Trade is what grows economies
No... trade keeps economies going. It's increasing trade that keeps them growing.
Trade is, of course, a good thing, because not all places on the earth are equally endowed with the resources we find good for a nice life.
when growth stops you get stagnation.
So says the dictionary. But who cares?
Growth is a biproduct of a strong economy. Stagnation tends to be a biproduct of a poor economy.
Because that is how growthism defines economic strength!
So far, you haven't made a case for an alternative or even offered any evidence to show that this 'growthism' of your invention is the bad thing you seem to think it is.
I laid out bullet points for anyone to pick out. I'm not going to elaborate on all of them, just the ones folks want to discuss.
So, pick one out and we'll discuss it.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 1:06 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 1:36 PM Jon has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 13 of 93 (757472)
05-09-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jon
05-09-2015 1:18 PM


Jon writes:
I laid out bullet points for anyone to pick out. I'm not going to elaborate on all of them, just the ones folks want to discuss.
Well you might as well start by defending your very first sweeping assertion.
Increased growth no longer leads to increased well-being.
What is your evidence for that statement and to whom are you applying it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 1:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 05-09-2015 3:25 PM Tangle has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 93 (757475)
05-09-2015 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
05-09-2015 1:36 PM


Increased Growth No Longer Leads to Increased Well-Being
Increased growth no longer leads to increased well-being.
What is your evidence for that statement and to whom are you applying it?
I'll answer the second part first, since it's the easiest, and was addressed in the OP:
quote:
Jon in Message 1:
Have First World societies out-developed their need for further economic growth?
...
First, why I think growthmanship now, more than ever, needs to be seriously questioned in the developed world
Now to the first part of your question. In the thread Replacing Consumerism, I cited a paper by Eric Olin Wright regarding increased consumption (one of the aspects of increased growth) and overall well-being:
quote:
Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):
Research on happiness indicates that once a person has a comfortable standard of living, increased income and consumption does not lead to increased life satisfaction and happiness. People find meaning and happiness through their connections with other people, through their engagement in interesting work and activities and their participation in communities much more than through lavish consumption. (p. 2)
More generally, we have:
quote:
"Does Economic Growth Make You Happy?" from The Times Literary Supplement:
The case against making increased GDP per capita the overriding policy objective is that it doesn’t deliver the increased happiness or welfare if promises. In 1974, the economist Richard Easterlin published a famous paper, "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?" [LINK (pdf)]. The answer, he concluded, after correlating per capita incomes and self-reported happiness levels across a number of countries is probably "no". In a refinement dating from 1995, Easterlin found no relationship between income and happiness above an average per capita income level of between $15,000 and $20,000. Other findings confirm Easterlin. Data from the UK show that from 1973 to 2009, there was a continuous rise in GDP per head, but no increase in reported life-satisfaction.
quote:
"Economic Growth Does Not Produce Well-Being" from Phys.org:
"Although the global economy has tripled since 1950, global human well-being, as estimated by the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), has been flat or decreasing since around 1978," said Dr Ida Kubiszewski.
These figures that show well-being capping in the 1970s line up with other measures related to growthism's ills. In her book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein argues:
quote:
Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything (2014):
The truth is that if we want to live within ecological limits, we would need to return to a lifestyle similar to the one we had in the 1970s, before consumption levels went crazy in the 1980s. Not exactly the various forms of hardship and deprivation evoked at Heartland conferences. As Kevin Anderson explains: "We need to give newly industrializing countries in the world the space to develop and improve the welfare and well-being of their people. This means more cuts in energy use by the developed world. It also means lifestyle changes which will have most impact on the wealthy. . . .  We've done this in the past. In the 1960s and 1970s we enjoyed a healthy and moderate lifestyle and we need to return to this to keep emissions under control. [. . .] (p. 91)
It's almost serendipitous that at the same time we essentially maxed out on well-being our little planet maxed out on its ability to handle too much more growth. And despite finding ourselves in a beautiful equilibrium, we just kept growing and growing and growing no matter the lack of need for that growth, no matter its injurious effects on our environment. Of course, the environmental impact of growth is a separate matter, but the correlation is important enough to point out (and becomes even more so when we start to consider how environmental degradation itself affects well-being).
So does this mean that all growth is superfluous? Not at all. For example, a new medicine that cures a disease is the type of growth that might increase well-being. And small increases in well-being over the last several decades have probably stemmed from these kinds of growth. But growth for growth's sake (the kind that policy makers and economists focus on, the kind measured by broad figures such as GDP) does not have that effect. Much of this kind of undirected growth not only goes to waste (it produces no well-being), but uses up resources that could be put to better use on growing areas that actually do produce well-being.
And of course a lot of this is related to marginal utility, but we can save that for another post or two (if necessary).
Anyway, there you have it: the evidence you requested plus segues into a couple of my other points if you'd like to move into discussions on any of those points. Or, if you'd like to climb into this point deeper, we can do that too.
The choice is yours.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : typo

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2015 1:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2015 3:45 AM Jon has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(4)
Message 15 of 93 (757478)
05-09-2015 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coyote
05-08-2015 7:49 PM


Please Add to List
Coyote writes:
Socialists, communists, and other authoritarians should just butt out and stop trying to micromanage humanity.
I mostly agree with this sentiment with some caveats, such as enjoying a world without smallpox for one.
My main problem with with this sentence is you left out entire categories of micromanagers.
You know, like conservatives.
Conservatives who abuse the concept of capitalism by using the tax code to redistribute wealth from those who work for a living to those who enjoy gambiling. What is the ultimate result of this concentration of wealth and the power it buys to profit the few at the expense of the many? It is historically called feudalism, although in the USA a better metaphor may be the concept of the plantation.
Why should the wealth of productive members of society be redistributed to parasites, such as corrupt politicians, unethical bankers, Wall Street inside traders, and religious fanatics? Essentially anyone out to lie and defraud the public out of enough money to bribe politicians and public figures to prevent them from becoming convicted of various felonies before they either disappear with the proceeds of their crimes, or in far too many cases, die before they can be brought to justice.
Is that your ideal concept of society, and if not why did you omit the other parasitic criminals who micromanage?
That is what the current tax code does in the USA for one simple reason - Money buys power and as the founder of modern conservatism Burke said "power corrupts."
Such as:
Tax-exempt religious fanatics who promote racism, homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism (cloaked in absolute bullshit), a war against science and logic, indeed nothing but pure hate which every major religion's founding texts condemn. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power.
Polluting parasites such as the Koch brothers whose wealth is subsidized by the poor and middle class producers through tax breaks they bought with campaign donations. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power.
A militarized police force and rate of incarceration which would be the envy of any brutal dictator in history, whose actions specifically target any minority or dissenter, often by cold-blooded murder. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power.
Micromanagement to such an extent it denies women the right to own their own bodies and denies to all non-wealthy people the right to who they choose to have sex with, what forms of contraception they may use, what substance thy may put in their bodies regardless of reasons or consequences, indeed even free trade in sex between consenting adults for mutual benefit. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power.
The very right to obtain medical treatment for easily cured conditions increasingly preserved for "the right people" in the USA. The health care system in the USA amounts to selective genocide. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power.
I could go on forever.
Perhaps you should replace the word socialism with conservative or the recently corrupted term libertarian when it comes to the concept of micromanagement.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2015 7:49 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024