Perpetual economic growth without destroying the planet?

[nosos]

Does anyone have links to anything on the development of the idea in academic economics?

 

[Fruitloop]

I think David Stockman (Ronnie Ray-gun's budget director) is a pretty key theorist. The idea itself is rather older though, and goes back at least as far as Adam Smith. 'Trickle-down' itself is more of a political term than a bona fide economic one as far as I know - supply side economics is the academic equivalent.

 

[perplexis]

It's interesting how persistent the myth of trickle-down benefits of economic growth has been in the public consiousness even now it's been widely rejected amongst economists. Obviously it's preferable for many to believe in something obviously untrue than to run the risk of arriving at redistributive conclusions.

Is the idea really so prevalanet in the public conciousness though? I certainly haven't met anyone who wasn't directly involved with the top-level of capitalism spouting this. Which is weird because I also don't know many of them trickling their benefits down to the less well-off.
I believe that this myth has been thoroughly outed as such, but in the absence of any economic theories to take the entrenched place of capitalism people believe there is no alternative.
Acceptance and submission are not necessarily the same although functionally they don't have much to separate them except false hope in contrast to added misery.

 

[Brainaddict]

Edit: tangentially- I think we also need to question the motivation for "growth".

From what I understand, an economists answer would be that it is to do with how money works - i.e. through lending and interest. And money works like this for pragmatic reasons - because it has helped to create the utopia we all now live in ()

 

[Fruitloop]

Is the idea really so prevalanet in the public conciousness though? I certainly haven't met anyone who wasn't directly involved with the top-level of capitalism spouting this. Which is weird because I also don't know many of them trickling their benefits down to the less well-off.
I believe that this myth has been thoroughly outed as such, but in the absence of any economic theories to take the entrenched place of capitalism people believe there is no alternative.
Acceptance and submission are not necessarily the same although functionally they don't have much to separate them except false hope in contrast to added misery.

I agree with all of the above. I suppose what suprises me is that it goes so entirely unchallenged that growth is the stated aim of government economic policy.

 

[perplexis]

From what I understand, an economists answer would be that it is to do with how money works - i.e. through lending and interest. And money works like this for pragmatic reasons - because it has helped to create the utopia we all now live in ()

Well, now you put it like that... where do I sign up?

I agree with all of the above. I suppose what suprises me is that it goes so entirely unchallenged that growth is the stated aim of government economic policy.

Exactly. I think I must have missed the bit of history where government's stated imperative ceased to be the good of the people and became the good of the balance sheet. Didn't they at least used to pretend?

Sadly, I'm just full of empty, angry rhetoric and I can sit on my arse railing against these notions all I want, it will almost certainly come to nothing.
The desire to achieve capital growth per se is baffling. OK, so with more money comes more power and possibly the ability to create resources to deal with actual problems, but the pursuit of happy, just society is surely more important?

 

[untethered]

It's interesting how persistent the myth of trickle-down benefits of economic growth has been in the public consiousness even now it's been widely rejected amongst economists. Obviously it's preferable for many to believe in something obviously untrue than to run the risk of arriving at redistributive conclusions.

Many people are happy to live in a society/world where there are winners and losers, provided that there is a reasonable degree of social and economic mobility.

 

[nosos]

Unfortunately all the evidence suggests the more free-market capitalism we have the less social mobility there is.

 

[untethered]

Unfortunately all the evidence suggests the more free-market capitalism we have the less social mobility there is.

You're starting to sound pretty un-American.

Don't you love your country, son?

 

[perplexis]

Many people are happy to live in a society/world where there are winners and losers, provided that there is a reasonable degree of social and economic mobility.

Telegraph 27th June 2007: UK 'one of worst countries for social mobility'

 

[phildwyer]

From what I understand, an economists answer would be that it is to do with how money works - i.e. through lending and interest.

That's not how money works. Usury is a perversion of money's nature and purpose, which is why it has always been condemned by every ethical system in history.

 

[Brainaddict]

The desire to achieve capital growth per se is baffling. OK, so with more money comes more power and possibly the ability to create resources to deal with actual problems, but the pursuit of happy, just society is surely more important?

How very old-fashioned of you

 

[untethered]

That's not how money works. Usury is a perversion of money's nature and purpose, which is why it has always been condemned by every ethical system in history.

Money is a social construct and has no "nature and purpose" beyond that which any society chooses to assign to it.

That said, I agree that usury is a bad idea.

 

[kyser_soze]

That's not how money works. Usury is a perversion of money's nature and purpose, which is why it has always been condemned by every ethical system in history.

Except Judaism & Confuscianism...

 

[phildwyer]

Money is a social construct and has no "nature and purpose" beyond that which any society chooses to assign to it.

Social constructs can have natures and purposes. The nature and purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods on a larger scale than is possible through barter. When money is treated as an autonomous and self-generating power, its nature and purpose are violated, and it becomes a destructive, hostile force.

 

[untethered]

Social constructs can have natures and purposes. The nature and purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods on a larger scale than is possible through barter. When money is treated as an autonomous and self-generating power, its nature and purpose are violated, and it becomes a destructive, hostile force.

It's perfectly legitimate to extend the function of a social construct.

The question is, whether it's a good or a bad thing, not whether it conforms to its original idea or "nature".

 

[phildwyer]

Except Judaism & Confuscianism...

Judaism condemns usury. It is a Christian misreading of Deuteronomy that suggests that Jews are allowed to take interest from gentiles. In fact Jews are allowed to take interest only from "others," or "aliens," a category that is best translated as "enemies" rather than "gentiles" in the modern world. So usury is permitted to Jews only as an act of war.

 

[kyser_soze]

And trade is war...and despite your theoretical reading of the matter, Jews charged interest to everyone (hence the moneylenders in the temple business...not just turning Gods house into a temple of mammon, but actually ignoring scripture at the same time as well)

 

[phildwyer]

And trade is war...and despite your theoretical reading of the matter, Jews charged interest to everyone (hence the moneylenders in the temple business...not just turning Gods house into a temple of mammon, but actually ignoring scripture at the same time as well)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that orthodox Jews will not charge interest to other Jews. Yes, Jews became the money-lenders of Europe because their ability to make a living in other areas was severely restricted, and because Christians interpreted the Hebrew Bible as allowing Jews to charge interest, which in reality it does not. This had the effect of placing European Jewry in the position of scapegoat. The terms "Judaism" and "capitalism" are used interchangeably as late as Marx's "On The Jewish Question."

 

[Brainaddict]

Does anyone have links to anything on the development of the idea in academic economics?

Paul Krugman is a good bet for critical perspectives on supply side economics.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peddling-Prosperity-Economic-Diminished-Expectations/dp/0393312925/

 

[kyser_soze]

but I believe that orthodox Jews will not charge interest to other Jews.

Ah, so now it's down from Jews generally to Orthodox jews only...very tiny part of the overall community phil, and they charge interest to anyone else...

 

[weltweit]

I would question the premise of the OP ..

Perpetual growth is not required ..

We are terrified of economic decline but stability, after taking account of inflation, and with a stable population would be quite fine and would be more sustainable.

Economic decline is painful and is bad news for political leaders but who would argue against stability, except those comparing league tables.

 

[Brainaddict]

I would question the premise of the OP ..

Perpetual growth is not required ..

We are terrified of economic decline but stability, after taking account of inflation, and with a stable population would be quite fine and would be more sustainable.

Economic decline is painful and is bad news for political leaders but who would argue against stability, except those comparing league tables.

From what I understand, economic growth is required for a functioning capitalist economy. Economic 'stability' requires growth under the current systems, and zero growth would actually be a sign of a declining economy.

Yes, I know it's insane, but that's the system we've got.

 

[weltweit]

From what I understand, economic growth is required for a functioning capitalist economy. Economic 'stability' requires growth under the current systems, and zero growth would actually be a sign of a declining economy.

Yes, I know it's insane, but that's the system we've got.

That is not what I think myself.

When there is recession, we do not find the total destruction of the capitalist economy, we just find a decline in economic activity which can produce hardship for groups of people. The whole applecart is not turned over.

Stability after inflation has been taken into account and a stable population seems a perfectly reasonable goal according to my thinking and likely much more sustainable when planetary resources polution and the like are taken into account.

 

[Demosthenes]

Except Judaism & Confuscianism...

No that's really unfair. Something in the Torah specifically forbids usury, and the whole question of whether jewish people actually pay any attention to it these days is just irrelevant.

And you can't get round it by saying that in that particular verse, usury specifically means excessive interest, because "excessive" there is totally undefinable which would mean that the prohibition effectively didn't mean anything, (which is of course the motivation for saying that usury means - excessive interest - to render it a meaningless prohibition.)

And even the christian church used to know what the prohibition meant, and only abandoned it some time in the middle ages.

But, from my point of view, well, - as far as I can see usury is the motor that drives inflation, - and it's what constitutes capitalism.

Without inflation, there'd be much less need for economic growth, and, quite possibly, free markets would actually work to benefit people.

I mean try and imagine what the housing market would be like, if people could only buy the houses they can afford to buy, without borrowing. (and if you like that there was some limit on the number or amount you could own)

 

[weltweit]

... I mean try and imagine what the housing market would be like, if people could only buy the houses they can afford to buy, without borrowing. (and if you like that there was some limit on the number or amount you could own)

There would need to be a limit on how many you could own or the rich could simply buy them all and offer them for rent to the less well off.

 

[gorski]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that orthodox Jews will not charge interest to other Jews. Yes, Jews became the money-lenders of Europe because their ability to make a living in other areas was severely restricted, and because Christians interpreted the Hebrew Bible as allowing Jews to charge interest, which in reality it does not. This had the effect of placing European Jewry in the position of scapegoat. The terms "Judaism" and "capitalism" are used interchangeably as late as Marx's "On The Jewish Question."

Indeed, they were forbidden, in the Middle Ages, i.e Feudalism, to own land - which is the bearer relationship of the Epoch. That meant no power!

From then on they were pushed into the spheres of the society which were then spearheading the New Era, i.e. Modernity, i.e. Capitalism. From banking to Sciences, from Art to Philosophy and so forth. They were much more ready for Capitalism than anyone else, as they were forced into these areas.

Not many people bother to understand these developments but without it it's so easy to fall into a trap of blabbering about things one really doesn't understand, which most keep on doing, as it's soooo easy....

 

[gorski]

Social constructs can have natures and purposes. The nature and purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods on a larger scale than is possible through barter. When money is treated as an autonomous and self-generating power, its nature and purpose are violated, and it becomes a destructive, hostile force.

There are thinkers arguing that abstract thinking was not possible until the advent/invention of money, as an abstraction [value abstraction in relation to work put into it] from goods themselves.

A bloody good point, if you see the History of Philosophy from that point of view!

 

[gorski]

Unfortunately all the evidence suggests the more free-market capitalism we have the less social mobility there is.

True! See the last report on social immobility in the developed world. It's the worst [most immobile] in the UK and then the US!!! A veritable horror story!!

 

[Fruitloop]

There are thinkers arguing that abstract thinking was not possible until the advent/invention of money, as an abstraction [value abstraction in relation to work put into it] from goods themselves.

A bloody good point, if you see the History of Philosophy from that point of view!

Sounds pretty mental to me. Do they offer any historical sources that might back up this rather outlandish claim?