I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.
i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.
The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.
economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way.
They are, before corruption factors. Economic growth = wealth = more options to improve quality of life.
Financial insecurity corrupts the mind towards hate. Greed from powerful will manipulate populist insecurity towards either direct support of oligarchist/zionist supremacism platform, or towards hateful stupidity that sabotages democratic process towards oligarchism. Technological progress keeps enabling an alternative to slavery from increases in total prosperity. Oligarchist supremacist rule can choose increased oppression instead, followed by “lets genocide the uppity slave class instead of subsidizing their demand”. Degrowth stupidity as an anti-Oligarchist political platform, strengthens oligarchist genocide solution arguments.
UBI/freedom dividends is a solution to everything. Opposing UBI is only rational if you need oppression and oppressive power hierarchy to enjoy life. UBI redistributes power away from political discretion, it makes labour markets fair, it makes everyone who wants to work much richer, while increasing overall consumption. Disruption, including clean energy transition, is net job creating in addition to enhancing current and future standard of living. Oligarchist campaigns to protect their evil can be told to shut their climate terrorist fuckfaces, or their fuckfaces will be shut for them. $300/ton co2 carbon tax ($3/gallon gasoline) can contribute $4000-$7000 in UBI funding for Americans. It provides market driven clean growth transition.
The demonic evil of degrowth advocacy is that it is rooted in derailing clean growth policy. I’ve seen it accompanying the most vile and absurd US empire propaganda points, that cannot possibly come from an organically gullible but an honest idiocracy. It is with 100% certainty that the push for degrowth comes from CIA/Oligarchist sources in order to divide and disinform those concerned with climate and human sustainability. “See how all of those climate alarmists hate your job and want to destroy the economy!!!”
By economic growth i mean more production. This production can be marketable but not represent an actual wealth gain. If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul.
In this sense, a reduction in production may not really represent a reduction in wealth globally.
A better production can have a way smaller volume than the current global production while still giving us more actual wealth to live with.
Thats why i say economic growth is not quality of life. Of course theres a correlation in the actual data today, but my point is that this correlation is not necessary, its an empirical correlation, not a logical one, and it is something that may change in the future.
If we cant dissociate economic growth from well being, then i take your point and agree with it.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
I think our views are compatible. Im not defending a forced degrowth nor hope that people do it voluntarily out of nowhere. But political measures to redistribute wealth and improve living standards, like what you envision with UBI, could lead to a natural and widely accepted degrowth, which would be positive.
If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul.
The bad product possibility example is not a good argument against abundance. Abundance economics permits pluralist sharing in wealth. Scarcity, Oligarchist monopoly protectionist, economics is inherently economic oppression for power concentration that will further influence rulership to economically disenfranchise the slave class. Carbon taxes does make distant imports, especially of bad products, more expensive unless shipping options are decarbonized.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
Carbon taxes funding a significant portion of UBI leads to massive economic growth. Massive employment, without taxpayer funding, in much faster energy transition capital investments is a lot of jobs. UBI itself leads to massive economic growth as well. more people can afford all necessities. Better paying jobs to afford even more consumption. The rich get richer even with higher taxes as they profit from selling more stuff. The combination means clean growth. Clean growth makes everyone happier and pro peace. Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally.
Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around.
What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.
i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.
The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.
They are, before corruption factors. Economic growth = wealth = more options to improve quality of life.
Financial insecurity corrupts the mind towards hate. Greed from powerful will manipulate populist insecurity towards either direct support of oligarchist/zionist supremacism platform, or towards hateful stupidity that sabotages democratic process towards oligarchism. Technological progress keeps enabling an alternative to slavery from increases in total prosperity. Oligarchist supremacist rule can choose increased oppression instead, followed by “lets genocide the uppity slave class instead of subsidizing their demand”. Degrowth stupidity as an anti-Oligarchist political platform, strengthens oligarchist genocide solution arguments.
UBI/freedom dividends is a solution to everything. Opposing UBI is only rational if you need oppression and oppressive power hierarchy to enjoy life. UBI redistributes power away from political discretion, it makes labour markets fair, it makes everyone who wants to work much richer, while increasing overall consumption. Disruption, including clean energy transition, is net job creating in addition to enhancing current and future standard of living. Oligarchist campaigns to protect their evil can be told to shut their climate terrorist fuckfaces, or their fuckfaces will be shut for them. $300/ton co2 carbon tax ($3/gallon gasoline) can contribute $4000-$7000 in UBI funding for Americans. It provides market driven clean growth transition.
The demonic evil of degrowth advocacy is that it is rooted in derailing clean growth policy. I’ve seen it accompanying the most vile and absurd US empire propaganda points, that cannot possibly come from an organically gullible but an honest idiocracy. It is with 100% certainty that the push for degrowth comes from CIA/Oligarchist sources in order to divide and disinform those concerned with climate and human sustainability. “See how all of those climate alarmists hate your job and want to destroy the economy!!!”
By economic growth i mean more production. This production can be marketable but not represent an actual wealth gain. If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul. In this sense, a reduction in production may not really represent a reduction in wealth globally. A better production can have a way smaller volume than the current global production while still giving us more actual wealth to live with. Thats why i say economic growth is not quality of life. Of course theres a correlation in the actual data today, but my point is that this correlation is not necessary, its an empirical correlation, not a logical one, and it is something that may change in the future.
If we cant dissociate economic growth from well being, then i take your point and agree with it.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
I think our views are compatible. Im not defending a forced degrowth nor hope that people do it voluntarily out of nowhere. But political measures to redistribute wealth and improve living standards, like what you envision with UBI, could lead to a natural and widely accepted degrowth, which would be positive.
The bad product possibility example is not a good argument against abundance. Abundance economics permits pluralist sharing in wealth. Scarcity, Oligarchist monopoly protectionist, economics is inherently economic oppression for power concentration that will further influence rulership to economically disenfranchise the slave class. Carbon taxes does make distant imports, especially of bad products, more expensive unless shipping options are decarbonized.
Carbon taxes funding a significant portion of UBI leads to massive economic growth. Massive employment, without taxpayer funding, in much faster energy transition capital investments is a lot of jobs. UBI itself leads to massive economic growth as well. more people can afford all necessities. Better paying jobs to afford even more consumption. The rich get richer even with higher taxes as they profit from selling more stuff. The combination means clean growth. Clean growth makes everyone happier and pro peace. Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.