The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
Is there such a thing as sustainable growth?
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.
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
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.
Because we're taking over the biosphere. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 18 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10