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.
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.