Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I've been pestering the economically talented people here with the "Why do we need growth?" question for a little too long to be loved. As far as I can perceive the reasoning, I understand that growth is the entire foundation that upholds the dominant economic construct... No growth, no sustainable economy. And so it seems we're stuck with not just an assumption but a necessity.

Which means that one day the current model will stop functioning (unless humanity grows itself a space ship and becomes extraterrestrial looters) or it will have to transform into an alternative form.

Is there such a thing as sustainable growth?

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there such a thing as sustainable growth?

Well, I don't disagree with the views here about "growth", though I must say that until we do figure out how to do a "sustainable growth" or "alternative growth", at least it means that more people are working when there is money floating around. But...I definitely believe that the idea of a "sustainable growth" bears more exploration...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as I can perceive the reasoning, I understand that growth is the entire foundation that upholds the dominant economic construct... No growth, no sustainable economy.
This is exactly why we need to build another economic construct. I don't believe the present one is long term sustainable. All physical systems have conservation laws, I don't see how the economy, being based in a physical reality, could not be limited by conservation laws as well. Thermodynamics will get us all. I would be interested to hear someone attempting to explain why economic systems are not subject to conservation laws that prohibit indefinite growth. Is our system not physically based? Even stuff like "intellectual production" would have to be limited by only having value compared to other "intellectual assets". Sounds very much zero sum to me. So, any "growth economy" proponents here on the trib? Why is it that this is a physically possible system?
Is there such a thing as sustainable growth?
Yes, it's called inflation.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But surely there are many gifted ET contributors who work in it - because there are little other alternatives, not-withstanding Chris Cook perhaps. I have attempted to grasp the corollaries of his construct, but I'm afraid I'm out of my wits on that... Nor have I an idea whether he has addressed the sustainability of his model at ET or elsewhere before, but I would be interested to read it.

The economics of today have developed, because they work. It seems evolution to me, in that regard. It happens, because there is a time-window for it. One day, the brick wall will come, but that's no worry for the species of today. Evolution has no long term strategy. It's opportune, it just is - and apparently so is economics.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed. This is exactly the problem with economics, though. It wont work long term, it might stop working quite soon, not planning is idiotic. Running in to the brick wall when you can see it quite well is very silly. Keeping doing something just 'cause it has worked in the past is shortsighted.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe the current economic construct is a result of a reversal of causation, and therefore of a conceptual error.

To wit: the 14th century saw the greatest economic (and social) collapse in European history. As happens after a biological mass extinction, there was an explosion of economic and cultural growth (call it a memetic radiation if you want) over the following century or so, in which 1) starting from an all-time low, there was sustained and rapid economic growth; 2) cultural norms were up for grabs and the traditional prohibition of usury was abandoned. This is becuase when your economy is expanding and there is lots of room for population to grow and expand, both return and interest rates can be sustainably high. So, the explosive recovery of the European economy between 1350 and 1500 laid the foundations of modern capitalism. And we're talking 5 to 10 generations here, enought to completely change the worldview of an entire civilisation.

Then around 1500 came the "age of exploration" with a greatly inflationary influx of precious metals and spices from America and Asia, plus constant warfare for about 200 years providing a keynesian stimulus to growth, plus a need for states to incur huge debts to maintain their huge armies.

So by the time the 17th century rolled along and enlightened scholars started to apply reason to economic matters, the financial system of capitalism was the natural state of things, and growth, rather than being a cause, was perceived as the effect.

And from that conceptual reversal of the causal chain come our current woes.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 07:11:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The other effect of the "age of exploration" was that it embedded growth as the discovery of new resources (including land.)

To me, this is one of the most interesting elements of a whole bunch of economic myths, including Ayn Rand's frontier style libertarianism. Eternal growth (and the general "morality of self-sufficiency" not to mention "if you're poor, it's because you're lazy") all powerfully run off the notion that if someone "eats your lunch" you just run off to "new territory" and do something new.

A basic truth observing large parts of the world is that a lot of the most productive, most habitable land has already been exploited, but our economics sort of lives by the idea that such things are in infinte supply.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 07:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition, when there is economic growth there is more social mobility, because people can get higher in the wealth ranking without others losing wealth in absolute terms. In other words, when economic growth falters, economic activity and social mobility become more of a zero-sum game, which is why we're seing all this wealth capture at the top of the dung heap. The limits of growth are at hand, the game is now closer to zero-sum, and those at the top seem to know it, if only instinctively.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 07:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is it that this is a physically possible system?

Because we're taking over the biosphere.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 08:56:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Socratic Economics I: Why GDP growth above all else? by Colman on June 29th, 2006

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 06:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. That was an interesting set of comments.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 08:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series